Skip to main content

Full text of "The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement."

See other formats


THE POLEMIC 

ON THE GENERAL LINE 

OF THE 

INTERNATIONAL 

COMMUNIST MOVEMENT 



From Marx to Mao 



© Digital Reprints 
2006 



THE POLEMIC 

ON THE GENERAL LINE 

OF THE 

INTERNATIONAL 

COMMUNIST MOVEMENT 



FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS 
PEKING 1965 



Printed in the People s Republic of China 



CONTENTS 



A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT 

The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 

{June 14, 1963) ' 1 

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIFFERENCES 
BETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU AND OUR- 
SELVES 

Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the 
CPSU 

(September 6, 1963) 55 

THE DIFFERENCES BEGAN WITH THE 20TH CONGRESS 

OF THE CPSU 59 

THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE 20TH CONGRESS 

OF THE CPSU 67 

THE 1957 MOSCOW MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES 70 
THE GROWTH OF THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU 

LEADERSHIP 75 

THE SURPRISE ASSAULT ON THE CPC BY THE LEADER- 
SHIP OF THE CPSU 79 

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES AT THE 

1960 MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES 83 

THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP BE- 
COMES SYSTEMATIZED 89 

AN ADVERSE CURRENT THAT IS OPPOSED TO MARX- 
ISM-LENINISM AND IS SPLITTING THE INTERNA- 
TIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT 93 

WHAT HAVE THE FACTS OF THE PAST SEVEN YEARS 

DEMONSTRATED? 99 

Appendix I 

Outline of Views on the Question of Peaceful Transition 

(November 10, 1957) 105 

Appendix II 

Statement of the Delegation of the Communist Party of China 
at the Bucharest Meeting of Fraternal Parties 
(June 26, 1960) " 109 



Appendix III 

The Five Proposals for Settlement of the Differences and 
Attainment of Unity Contained in the Letter of the Central 
Committee of the CPC in Reply to the Letter of Informa- 
tion of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
{September 10, 1960) 113 

ON THE QUESTION OF STALIN 

Second Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

(September 13, 1963) 115 

IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY? 

Third Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

(September 26, 1963) 139 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE CAPITAL IN YUGO- 
SLAV CITIES 145 

YUGOSLAV COUNTRYSIDE SWAMPED BY CAPITALISM 147 

THE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY OWNED 

BY THE WHOLE PEOPLE INTO CAPITALIST ECONOMY 154 

A DEPENDENCY OF U.S. IMPERIALISM 161 

A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SPECIAL DETACHMENT 

OF U.S. IMPERIALISM 166 

THE DEGENERATION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE 
PROLETARIAT INTO THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE 
BOURGEOISIE 171 

THE PRINCIPLEED STAND OF THE CPC ON THE QUES- 
TION OF YUGOSLAVIA 175 

HAS TITO "REMOVED HIS ERRORS"? OR DOES 

KHRUSHCHOV REGARD TITO AS HIS TEACHER? 177 

BRIEF CONCLUSION 181 

APOLOGISTS OF NEO-COLONIALISM 

Fourth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

(October 22, 1964) 185 

ABOLITION OF THE TASK OF COMBATING IMPERIAL- 
ISM AND COLONIALISM 188 

PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ABOLISHING THE REVOLUTION 

OF THE OPPRESSED NATIONS 193 

OPPOSITION TO WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION 197 

THE AREAS IN WHICH CONTEMPORARY WORLD CON- 
TRADICTIONS ARE CONCENTRATED 200 



DISTORTION OF THE LENINIST VIEW OF LEADERSHIP 

IN THE REVOLUTION 203 

THE PATH OF NATIONALISM AND DEGENERATION 206 

AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL-CHAUVINISM 209 

AGAINST THE "THEORY OF RACISM" AND THE 

"THEORY OF THE YELLOW PERIL" 212 

RESURRECTING THE OLD REVISIONISM IN A NEW 

GUISE 216 

TWO DIFFERENT LINES ON THE QUESTION OF WAR AND 
PEACE 

Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

(November 19, 1963) 221 

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY 224 

THE GREATEST FRAUD 230 

THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTING 

A NEW WORLD WAR 235 

NUCLEAR FETISHISM AND NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL ARE 
THE THEORETICAL BASIS AND GUIDING POLICY OF 
MODERN REVISIONISM 242 

FIGHT OR CAPITULATE? 249 

THE ROAD IN DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE ROAD 

LEADING TO WAR 254 

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE — TWO DIAMETRICALLY OP- 
POSED POLICIES 

Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

(December 12, 1963) 259 

LENIN AND STALIN'S POLICY OF PEACEFUL CO- 
EXISTENCE 262 

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA UPHOLDS LENIN'S 

POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE 270 

THE GENERAL LINE OF "PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE" 

OF THE CPSU LEADERS 275 

THREE DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE 278 

THE CPSU LEADERS' GENERAL LINE OF "PEACEFUL 

COEXISTENCE" CATERS TO U.S. IMPERIALISM 289 

SOVIET-U S. COLLABORATION IS THE HEART AND 
SOUL OF THE CPSU LEADERS' GENERAL LINE OF 
"PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE" 295 

A FEW WORDS OF ADVICE TO THE LEADERS OF THE 

CPSU 300 



THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU ARE THE GREATEST SPLIT- 
TERS OF OUR TIMES 

Seventh Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

{February 4, 1964) 303 

A REVIEW OF HISTORY 306 

EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS 313 

THE GREATEST SPLITTERS OF OUR TIMES 318 

REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF BEING ANTI-SOVIET 326 

REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SEIZING THE 

LEADERSHIP 331 

REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF FRUSTRATING THE 
WILL OF THE MAJORITY AND VIOLATING INTER- 
NATIONAL DISCIPLINE 336 

REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SUPPORTING THE 

ANTI-PARTY GROUPS OF FRATERNAL PARTIES 341 

THE PRESENT PUBLIC DEBATE 348 

THE WAY TO DEFEND AND STRENGTHEN UNITY 354 

THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND KHRUSHCHOV'S 
REVISIONISM 

Eighth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

{March 31, 1964) 359 

A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND KAUTSKY 362 

VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW OF 

PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION 366 

OUR STRUGGLE AGAINST KHRUSHCHOV'S REVISION- 
ISM 370 

SOPHISTRY CANNOT ALTER HISTORY 375 

LIES CANNOT COVER UP REALITY 382 

REFUTATION OF THE "PARLIAMENTARY ROAD" 388 

REFUTATION OF "OPPOSITION TO LEFT OPPORTUN- 
ISM" 392 

TWO DIFFERENT LINES. TWO DIFFERENT RESULTS 399 

FROM BROWDER AND TITO TO KHRUSHCHOV 403 

OUR HOPES 411 

ON KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM AND ITS HIS- 
TORICAL LESSONS FOR THE WORLD 

Ninth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU 

{July 14, 1964) 415 

SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE 

PROLETARIAT 418 



ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE EXIST 

IN THE SOVIET UNION 428 

THE SOVIET PRIVILEDGED STRATUM AND THE REVI- 
SIONIST KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE 436 

REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OF THE 

WHOLE PEOPLE 444 

REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE 

WHOLE PEOPLE 453 

KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM 459 

HISTORICAL LESSONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE 

PROLETARIAT 467 

WHY KHRUSHCHOV FELL 

{November 21, 1964) 481 

APPENDICES 

THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU 
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC 

{March 30, 1963) 495 

OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE 
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION TO ALL 
PARTY ORGANISATIONS, TO ALL COMMUNISTS OF THE 
SOVIET UNION 

{July 14, 1963) 526 



A PROPOSAL CONCERNING 

THE GENERAL LINE 

OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

COMMUNIST MOVEMENT 

The Letter of 

the Central Committee of 

the Communist Party of China 

in Reply to the Letter of 

the Central Committee of 

the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 

of March 30, 1963 



(June 14, 1963) 



June 14, 1963 
The Central Committee of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union 

Dear Comrades, 

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 
has studied the letter of the Central Committee of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963. 

All who have the unity of the socialist camp and the inter- 
national communist movement at heart are deeply concerned 
about the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties 
and hope that our talks will help to eliminate differences, 
strengthen unity and create favourable conditions for conven- 
ing a meeting of representatives of all the Communist and 
Workers' Parties. 

It is the common and sacred duty of the Communist and 
Workers' Parties of all countries to uphold and strengthen the 
unity of the international communist movement. The Chinese 
and Soviet Parties bear a heavier responsibility for the unity 
of the entire socialist camp and international communist 
movement and should of course make commensurately greater 
efforts. 

A number of major differences of principle now exist in 
the international communist movement. But however serious 
these differences, we should exercise sufficient patience and 
find ways to eliminate them so that we can unite our forces 
and strengthen the struggle against our common enemy. 

It is with this sincere desire that the Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of China approaches the forthcoming 
talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties. 

In its letter of March 30, the Central Committee of the 
CPSU systematically presents its views on questions that need 



to be discussed in the talks between the Chinese and Soviet 
Parties, and in particular raises the question of the general 
line of the international communist movement. In this letter 
we too would like to express our views, which constitute our 
proposal on the general line of the international communist 
movement and on some related questions of principle. 

We hope that this exposition of views will be conducive to 
mutual understanding by our two Parties and to a detailed, 
point-by-point discussion in the talks. 

We also hope that this will be conducive to the understand- 
ing of our views by the fraternal Parties and to a full ex- 
change of ideas at an international meeting of fraternal 
Parties. 

1. The general line of the international communist move- 
ment must take as its guiding principle the Marxist-Leninist 
revolutionary theory concerning the historical mission of the 
proletariat and must not depart from it. 

The Moscow Meetings of 1957 and 1960 adopted the Dec- 
laration and the Statement respectively after a full exchange 
of views and in accordance with the principle of reaching 
unanimity through consultation. The two documents point 
out the characteristics of our epoch and the common laws of 
socialist revolution and socialist construction, and lay down 
the common line of all the Communist and Workers' Parties. 
They are the common programme of the international com- 
munist movement. 

It is true that for several years there have been differences 
within the international communist movement in the under- 
standing of, and the attitude towards, the Declaration of 1957 
and the Statement of 1960. The central issue here is whether 
or not to accept the revolutionary principles of the Declara- 
tion and the Statement. In the last analysis, it is a question 
of whether or not to accept the universal truth of Marxism- 
Leninism, whether or not to recognize the universal signif- 
icance of the road of the October Revolution, whether or not 



to accept the fact that the people still living under the im- 
perialist and capitalist system, who comprise two-thirds of the 
world's population, need to make revolution, and whether or 
not to accept the fact that the people already on the socialist 
road, who comprise one-third of the world's population, need 
to carry their revolution forward to the end. 

It has become an urgent and vital task of the international 
communist movement resolutely to defend the revolutionary 
principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. 

Only by strictly following the revolutionary teachings of 
Marxism-Leninism and the general road of the October Rev- 
olution is it possible to have a correct understanding of the 
revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement 
and a correct attitude towards them. 

2. What are the revolutionary principles of the Declara- 
tion and the Statement? They may be summarized as follows: 

Workers of all countries, unite; workers of the world, 
unite with the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations; 
oppose imperialism and reaction in all countries; strive for 
world peace, national liberation, people's democracy and so- 
cialism; consolidate and expand the socialist camp; bring the 
proletarian world revolution step by step to complete 
victory; and establish a new world without imperialism, 
without capitalism and without the exploitation of man 
by man. 

This, in our view, is the general line of the international 
communist movement at the present stage. 

3. This general line proceeds from the actual world situa- 
tion taken as a whole and from a class analysis of the funda- 
mental contradictions in the contemporary world, and is 
directed against the counter-revolutionary global strategy of 
U.S. imperialism. 

This general line is one of forming a broad united front, 
with the socialist camp and the international proletariat as its 



nucleus, to oppose the imperialists and reactionaries headed 
by the United States; it is a line of boldly arousing the masses, 
expanding the revolutionary forces, winning over the middle 
forces and isolating the reactionary forces. 

This general line is one of resolute revolutionary struggle 
by the people of all countries and of carrying the proletarian 
world revolution forward to the end; it is the line that most 
effectively combats imperialism and defends world peace. 

If the general line of the international communist move- 
ment is one-sidedly reduced to "peaceful coexistence", "peace- 
ful competition" and "peaceful transition", this is to violate 
the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 
1960 Statement, to discard the historical mission of proletarian 
world revolution, and to depart from the revolutionary teach- 
ings of Marxism-Leninism. 

The general line of the international communist movement 
should reflect the general law of development of world his- 
tory. The revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the 
people in various countries go through different stages and 
they all have their own characteristics, but they will not tran- 
scend the general law of development of world history. The 
general line should point out the basic direction for the rev- 
olutionary struggles of the proletariat and people of all coun- 
tries. 

While working out its specific line and policies, it is most 
important for each Communist or Workers' Party to adhere to 
the principle of integrating the universal truth of Marxism- 
Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution and con- 
struction in its own country. 

4. In defining the general line of the international com- 
munist movement, the starting point is the concrete class 
analysis of world politics and economics as a whole and of 
actual world conditions, that is to say, of the fundamental 
contradictions in the contemporary world. 



If one avoids a concrete class analysis, seizes at random on 
certain superficial phenomena, and draws subjective and 
groundless conclusions, one cannot possibly reach correct con- 
clusions with regard to the general line of the international 
communist movement but will inevitably slide on to a track 
entirely different from that of Marxism-Leninism. 

What are the fundamental contradictions in the contempo- 
rary world? Marxist-Leninists consistently hold that they are: 

the contradiction between the socialist camp and the im- 
perialist camp; 

the contradiction between the proletariat and the bour- 
geoisie in the capitalist countries; 

the contradiction between the oppressed nations and im- 
perialism; and 

the contradictions among imperialist countries and among 
monopoly capitalist groups. 

The contradiction between the socialist camp and the im- 
perialist camp is a contradiction between two fundamentally 
different social systems, socialism and capitalism. It is un- 
doubtedly very sharp. But Marxist-Leninists must not regard 
the contradictions in the world as consisting solely and simply 
of the contradiction between the socialist camp and the im- 
perialist camp. 

The international balance of forces has changed and has 
become increasingly favourable to socialism and to all the op- 
pressed peoples and nations of the world, and most unfavour- 
able to imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries. 
Nevertheless, the contradictions enumerated above still objec- 
tively exist. 

These contradictions and the struggles to which they give 
rise are interrelated and influence each other. Nobody can 
obliterate any of these fundamental contradictions or subjec- 
tively substitute one for all the rest. 

It is inevitable that these contradictions will give rise to 
popular revolutions, which alone can resolve them. 



5. The following erroneous views should be repudiated on 
the question of the fundamental contradictions in the con- 
temporary world: 

a. the view which blots out the class content of the con- 
tradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps 
and fails to see this contradiction as one between states 
under the dictatorship of the proletariat and states under 
the dictatorship of the monopoly capitalists; 

b. the view which recognizes only the contradiction be- 
tween the socialist and the imperialist camps, while neglect- 
ing or underestimating the contradictions between the pro- 
letariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist world, between 
the oppressed nations and imperialism, among the imperial- 
ist countries and among the monopoly capitalist groups, and 
the struggles to which these contradictions give rise; 

c. the view which maintains with regard to the capitalist 
world that the contradiction between the proletariat and 
the bourgeoisie can be resolved without a proletarian rev- 
olution in each country and that the contradiction between 
the oppressed nations and imperialism can be resolved with- 
out revolution by the oppressed nations; 

d. the view which denies that the development of the 
inherent contradictions in the contemporary capitalist world 
inevitably leads to a new situation in which the imperialist 
countries are locked in an intense struggle, and asserts that 
the contradictions among the imperialist countries can be 
reconciled, or even eliminated, by "international agreements 
among the big monopolies"; and 

e. the view which maintains that the contradiction be- 
tween the two world systems of socialism and capitalism 
will automatically disappear in the course of "economic 
competition", that the other fundamental world contradic- 
tions will automatically do so with the disappearance of the 
contradiction between the two systems, and that a "world 



without wars", a new world of "all-round co-operation", 
will appear. 

It is obvious that these erroneous views inevitably lead to 
erroneous and harmful policies and hence to setbacks and 
losses of one kind or another to the cause of the people and 
of socialism. 

6. The balance of forces between imperialism and social- 
ism has undergone a fundamental change since World War 
II. The main indication of this change is that the world now 
has not just one socialist country but a number of socialist 
countries forming the mighty socialist camp, and that the peo- 
ple who have taken the socialist road now number not two 
hundred million but a thousand million, or a third of the 
world's population. 

The socialist camp is the outcome of the struggles of the in- 
ternational proletariat and working people. It belongs to the 
international proletariat and working people as well as to the 
people of the socialist countries. 

The main common demands of the people of the countries 
in the socialist camp and the international proletariat and 
working people are that all the Communist and Workers' Par- 
ties in the socialist camp should: 

adhere to the Marxist-Leninist line and pursue correct 
Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies; 

consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
worker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and carry the 
socialist revolution forward to the end on the economic, po- 
litical and ideological fronts; 

promote the initiative and creativeness of the broad 
masses, carry out socialist construction in a planned way, 
develop production, improve the people's livelihood and 
strengthen national defense; 

strengthen the unity of the socialist camp on the basis 
of Marxism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries 
on the basis of proletarian internationalism; 



oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war, 
and defend world peace; 

oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counter- 
revolutionary policies of the reactionaries of all countries; 
and 

help the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed classes 
and nations of the world. 

All Communist and Workers' Parties in the socialist camp 
owe it to their own people and to the international proletariat 
and working people to fulfil these demands. 

By fulfilling these demands the socialist camp will exert 
a decisive influence on the course of human history. 

For this very reason, the imperialists and reactionaries in- 
variably try in a thousand and one ways to influence the 
domestic and foreign policies of the countries in the socialist 
camp, to undermine the camp and break up the unity of the 
socialist countries and particularly the unity of China and the 
Soviet Union. They invariably try to infiltrate and subvert 
the socialist countries and even entertain the extravagant hope 
of destroying the socialist camp. 

The question of what is the correct attitude towards the 
socialist camp is a most important question of principle con- 
fronting all Communist and Workers' Parties. 

It is under new historical conditions that the Communist 
and Workers' Parties are now carrying on the task of pro- 
letarian internationalist unity and struggle. When only one 
socialist country existed and when this country was faced 
with hostility and jeopardized by all the imperialists and reac- 
tionaries because it firmly pursued the correct Marxist-Lenin- 
ist line and policies, the touchstone of proletarian international- 
ism for every Communist Party was whether or not it 
resolutely defended the only socialist country. Now there is a 
socialist camp consisting of thirteen countries, Albania, Bul- 
garia, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic 
Republic, Hungary, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 

10 



Mongolia, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union and the Demo- 
cratic Republic of Viet Nam. Under these circumstances, the 
touchstone of proletarian internationalism for every Commu- 
nist Party is whether or not it resolutely defends the whole 
of the socialist camp, whether or not it defends the unity of 
all the countries in the camp on the basis of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism and whether or not it defends the Marxist-Leninist line 
and policies which the socialist countries ought to pursue. 

If anybody does not pursue the correct Marxist-Leninist 
line and policies, does not defend the unity of the socialist 
camp but on the contrary creates tension and splits within it, 
or even follows the policies of the Yugoslav revisionists, tries 
to liquidate the socialist camp or helps capitalist countries to 
attack fraternal socialist countries, then he is betraying the 
interests of the entire international proletariat and the people 
of the world. 

If anybody, following in the footsteps of others, defends the 
erroneous opportunist line and policies pursued by a certain 
socialist country instead of upholding the correct Marxist- 
Leninist line and policies which the socialist countries ought 
to pursue, defends the policy of split instead of upholding the 
policy of unity, then he is departing from Marxism-Leninism 
and proletarian internationalism. 

7. Taking advantage of the situation after World War II, 
the U.S. imperialists stepped into the shoes of the German, 
Italian and Japanese fascists, and have been trying to erect a 
huge world empire such as has never been known before. 
The strategic objectives of U.S. imperialism have been to grab 
and dominate the intermediate zone lying between the United 
States and the socialist camp, put down the revolutions of the 
oppressed peoples and nations, proceed to destroy the socialist 
countries, and thus to subject all the peoples and countries of 
the world, including its allies, to domination and enslavement 
by U.S. monopoly capital. 

11 



Ever since World War II, the U.S. imperialists have been 
conducting propaganda for war against the Soviet Union and 
the socialist camp. There are two aspects to this propaganda. 
While the U.S. imperialists are actually preparing such a war, 
they also use this propaganda as a smokescreen for their op- 
pression of the American people and for the extension of their 
aggression against the rest of the capitalist world. 

The 1960 Statement points out: 

"U.S. imperialism has become the biggest international ex- 
ploiter." 

"The United States is the mainstay of colonialism today." 

"U.S. imperialism is the main force of aggression and war." 

"International developments in recent years have furnished 
many new proofs of the fact that U.S. imperialism is the chief 
bulwark of world reaction and an international gendarme, that 
it has become an enemy of the peoples of the whole world." 

U.S. imperialism is pressing its policies of aggression and 
war all over the world, but the outcome is bound to be the 
opposite of that intended — it will only be to hasten the 
awakening of the people in all countries and to hasten their 
revolutions. 

The U.S. imperialists have thus placed themselves in op- 
position to the people of the whole world and have become 
encircled by them. The international proletariat must and 
can unite all the forces that can be united, make use of the 
internal contradictions in the enemy camp and establish the 
broadest united front against the U.S. imperialists and their 
lackeys. 

The realistic and correct course is to entrust the fate of the 
people and of mankind to the unity and struggle of the world 
proletariat and to the unity and struggle of the people in all 
countries. 

Conversely, to make no distinction between enemies, friends 
and ourselves and to entrust the fate of the people and of 
mankind to collaboration with U.S. imperialism is to lead peo- 

12 



pie astray. The events of the last few years have exploded 
this illusion. 

8. The various types of contradictions in the contemporary 
world are concentrated in the vast areas of Asia, Africa and 
Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under im- 
perialist rule and the storm-centres of world revolution 
dealing direct blows at imperialism. 

The national democratic revolutionary movement in these 
areas and the international socialist revolutionary movement 
are the two great historical currents of our time. 

The national democratic revolution in these areas is an im- 
portant component of the contemporary proletarian world 
revolution. 

The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people 
in Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and under- 
mining the foundations of the rule of imperialism and colo- 
nialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in defence 
of world peace. 

In a sense, therefore, the whole cause of the international 
proletarian revolution hinges on the outcome of the revolu- 
tionary struggles of the people of these areas, who constitute 
the overwhelming majority of the world's population. 

Therefore, the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the 
people in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely not 
merely a matter of regional significance but one of overall 
importance for the whole cause of proletarian world revolu- 
tion. 

Certain persons now go so far as to deny the great interna- 
tional significance of the anti-imperialist revolutionary strug- 
gles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and, 
on the pretext of breaking down the barriers of nationality, 
colour and geographical location, are trying their best to efface 
the line of demarcation between oppressed and oppressor na- 
tions and between oppressed and oppressor countries and to 
hold down the revolutionary struggles of the peoples in these 

13 



areas. In fact, they cater to the needs of imperialism and 
create a new "theory" to justify the rule of imperialism in 
these areas and the promotion of its policies of old and new 
colonialism. Actually, this "theory" seeks not to break down 
the barriers of nationality, colour and geographical location 
but to maintain the rule of the "superior nations" over the 
oppressed nations. It is only natural that this fraudulent 
"theory" is rejected by the people in these areas. 

The working class in every socialist country and in every 
capitalist country must truly put into effect the fighting 
slogans, "Workers of all countries, unite!" and "Workers and 
oppressed nations of the world, unite!"; it must study the rev- 
olutionary experience of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America, firmly support their revolutionary actions and regard 
the cause of their liberation as a most dependable support 
for itself and as directly in accord with its own interests. This 
is the only effective way to break down the barriers of nation- 
ality, colour and geographical location and this is the only 
genuine proletarian internationalism. 

It is impossible for the working class in the European and 
American capitalist countries to liberate itself unless it unites 
with the oppressed nations and unless those nations are 
liberated. Lenin rightly said: 

The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries 
would actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against 
capital, the workers of Europe and America were not close- 
ly and completely united with the hundreds upon hundreds 
of millions of "colonial" slaves who are oppressed by capi- 
tal. 1 

Certain persons in the international communist movement 
are now taking a passive or scornful or negative attitude to- 
wards the struggles of the oppressed nations for liberation. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Second Congress of the Communist International", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 
1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 472-73. 

14 



They are in fact protecting the interests of monopoly capital, 
betraying those of the proletariat, and degenerating into social 
democrats. 

The attitude taken towards the revolutionary struggles of 
the people in the Asian, African and Latin American countries 
is an important criterion for differentiating those who want 
revolution from those who do not and those who are truly 
defending world peace from those who are abetting the forces 
of aggression and war. 

9. The oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and 
Latin America are faced with the urgent task of fighting im- 
perialism and its lackeys. 

History has entrusted to the proletarian parties in these 
areas the glorious mission of holding high the banner of strug- 
gle against imperialism, against old and new colonialism and 
for national independence and people's democracy, of stand- 
ing in the forefront of the national democratic revolutionary 
movement and striving for a socialist future. 

In these areas, extremely broad sections of the population 
refuse to be slaves of imperialism. They include not only the 
workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bourgeoisie, but 
also the patriotic national bourgeoisie and even certain kings, 
princes and aristocrats who are patriotic. 

The proletariat and its party must have confidence in the 
strength of the masses and, above all, must unite with the 
peasants and establish a solid worker-peasant alliance. It is 
of primary importance for advanced members of the prole- 
tariat to work in the rural areas, help the peasants to get or- 
ganized, and raise their class consciousness and their national 
self-respect and self-confidence. 

On the basis of the worker-peasant alliance the proletariat 
and its party must unite all the strata that can be united and 
organize a broad united front against imperialism and its 
lackeys. In order to consolidate and expand this united front 
it is necessary that the proletarian party should maintain its 

15 



ideological political and organizational independence and in- 
sist on the leadership of the revolution. 

The proletarian party and the revolutionary people must 
learn to master all forms of struggle, including armed struggle. 
They must defeat counter-revolutionary armed force with rev- 
olutionary armed force whenever imperialism and its lackeys 
resort to armed suppression. 

The nationalist countries which have recently won political 
independence are still confronted with the arduous tasks of 
consolidating it, liquidating the forces of imperialism and 
domestic reaction, carrying out agrarian and other social re- 
forms and developing their national economy and culture. It 
is of practical and vital importance for these countries to guard 
and fight against the neo-colonialist policies which the old 
colonialists adopt to preserve their interests, and especially 
against the neo-colonialism of U.S. imperialism. 

In some of these countries, the patriotic national bourgeoisie 
continue to stand with the masses in the struggle against im- 
perialism and colonialism and introduce certain measures of 
social progress. This requires the proletarian party to make 
a full appraisal of the progressive role of the patriotic national 
bourgeoisie and strengthen unity with them. 

As the internal social contradictions and the international 
class struggle sharpen, the bourgeoisie, and particularly the 
big bourgeoisie, in some newly independent countries increas- 
ingly tend to become retainers of imperialism and to pursue 
anti-popular, anti-Communist and counter-revolutionary poli- 
cies. It is necessary for the proletarian party resolutely to 
oppose these reactionary policies. 

Generally speaking, the bourgeoisie in these countries have 
a dual character. When a united front is formed with the 
bourgeoisie, the policy of the proletarian party should be one 
of both unity and struggle. The policy should be to unite 
with the bourgeoisie, in so far as they tend to be progressive, 
anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, but to struggle against their 

16 



reactionary tendencies to compromise and collaborate with 
imperialism and the forces of feudalism. 

On the national question the world outlook of the 
proletarian party is internationalism, and not nationalism. In 
the revolutionary struggle it supports progressive nationalism 
and opposes reactionary nationalism. It must always draw 
a clear line of demarcation between itself and bourgeois na- 
tionalism, to which it must never fall captive. 

The 1960 Statement says: 

Communists expose attempts by the reactionary section 
of the bourgeoisie to represent its selfish, narrow class in- 
terests as those of the entire nation; they expose the dema- 
gogic use by bourgeois politicians of socialist slogans for the 
same purpose. . . . 

If the proletariat becomes the tail of the landlords and bour- 
geoisie in the revolution, no real or thorough victory in the na- 
tional democratic revolution is possible, and even if victory 
of a kind is gained, it will be impossible to consolidate it. 

In the course of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed 
nations and peoples, the proletarian party must put forward 
a programme of its own which is thoroughly against impe- 
rialism and domestic reaction and for national independence 
and people's democracy, and it must work independently 
among the masses, constantly expand the progressive forces, 
win over the middle forces and isolate the reactionary forces; 
only thus can it carry the national democratic revolution 
through to the end and guide the revolution on to the road of 
socialism. 

10. In the imperialist and the capitalist countries, the pro- 
letarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are 
essential for the thorough resolution of the contradictions of 
capitalist society. 

In striving to accomplish this task the proletarian party 
must under the present circumstances actively lead the work- 

17 



ing class and the working people in struggles to oppose 
monopoly capital, to defend democratic rights, to oppose the 
menace of fascism, to improve living conditions, to oppose 
imperialist arms expansion and war preparations, to defend 
world peace and actively to support the revolutionary 
struggles of the oppressed nations. 

In the capitalist countries which U.S. imperialism controls 
or is trying to control, the working class and the people should 
direct their attacks mainly against U.S. imperialism, but also 
against their own monopoly capitalists and other reactionary 
forces who are betraying the national interests. 

Large-scale mass struggles in the capitalist countries in 
recent years have shown that the working class and working 
people are experiencing a new awakening. Their struggles, 
which are dealing blows at monopoly capital and reaction, 
have opened bright prospects for the revolutionary cause in 
their own countries and are also a powerful support for the 
revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin 
American peoples and for the countries of the socialist camp. 

The proletarian parties in imperialist or capitalist countries 
must maintain their own ideological, political and organiza- 
tional independence in leading revolutionary struggles. At 
the same time, they must unite all the forces that can be 
united and build a broad united front against monopoly 
capital and against the imperialist policies of aggression and 
war. 

While actively leading immediate struggles, Communists 
in the capitalist countries should link them with the struggle 
for long-range and general interests, educate the masses in a 
Marxist-Leninist revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their 
political consciousness and undertake the historical task of 
the proletarian revolution. If they fail to do so, if they regard 
the immediate movement as everything, determine their con- 
duct from case to case, adapt themselves to the events of the 
day and sacrifice the basic interests of the proletariat, that is 
out-and-out social democracy. 

18 



Social democracy is a bourgeois ideological trend. Lenin 
pointed out long ago that the social democratic parties are 
political detachments of the bourgeoisie, its agents in the 
working-class movement and its principal social prop. Com- 
munists must at all times draw a clear line of demarcation 
between themselves and social democratic parties on the basic 
question of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of 
the proletariat and liquidate the ideological influence of social 
democracy in the international working-class movement and 
among the working people. Beyond any shadow of doubt, 
Communists must win over the masses under the influence 
of the social democratic parties and must win over those left 
and middle elements in the social democratic parties who are 
willing to oppose domestic monopoly capital and domination 
by foreign imperialism, and must unite with them in extensive 
joint action in the day-to-day struggle of the working-class 
movement and in the struggle to defend world peace. 

In order to lead the proletariat and working people in 
revolution, Marxist-Leninist Parties must master all forms 
of struggle and be able to substitute one form for another 
quickly as the conditions of struggle change. The vanguard of 
the proletariat will remain unconquerable in all circumstances 
only if it masters all forms of struggle — peaceful and armed, 
open and secret, legal and illegal, parliamentary struggle and 
mass struggle, etc. It is wrong to refuse to use parliamentary 
and other legal forms of struggle when they can and should 
be used. However, if a Marxist-Leninist Party falls into legal- 
ism or parliamentary cretinism, confining the struggle within 
the limits permitted by the bourgeoisie, this will inevitably 
lead to renouncing the proletarian revolution and the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat. 

11. On the question of transition from capitalism to social- 
ism, the proletarian party must proceed from the stand of 
class struggle and revolution and base itself on the Marxist- 

19 



Leninist teachings concerning the proletarian revolution and 
the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Communists would always prefer to bring about the transi- 
tion to socialism by peaceful means. But can peaceful transi- 
tion be made into a new world-wide strategic principle for 
the international communist movement? Absolutely not. 

Marxism-Leninism consistently holds that the fundamental 
question in all revolutions is that of state power. The 1957 
Declaration and the 1960 Statement both clearly point out, 
"Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling 
classes never relinquish power voluntarily." The old govern- 
ment never topples even in a period of crisis, unless it is 
pushed. This is a universal law of class struggle. 

In specific historical conditions, Marx and Lenin did raise 
the possibility that revolution may develop peacefully. But, 
as Lenin pointed out, the peaceful development of revolution 
is an opportunity "very seldom to be met with in the history 
of revolutions". 

As a matter of fact, there is no historical precedent for 
peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. 

Certain persons say there was no precedent when Marx 
foretold that socialism would inevitably replace capitalism. 
Then why can we not predict a peaceful transition from 
capitalism to socialism despite the absence of a precedent? 

This parallel is absurd. Employing dialectical and historical 
materialism, Marx analysed the contradictions of capitalism, 
discovered the objective laws of development of human so- 
ciety and arrived at a scientific conclusion, whereas the 
prophets who pin all their hopes on "peaceful transition" pro- 
ceed from historical idealism, ignore the most fundamental 
contradictions of capitalism, repudiate the Marxist-Leninist 
teachings on class struggle, and arrive at a subjective and 
groundless conclusion. How can people who repudiate Marx- 
ism get any help from Marx? 

It is plain to everyone that the capitalist countries are 
strengthening their state machinery — and especially their 

20 



military apparatus — the primary purpose of which is to sup- 
press the people in their own countries. 

The proletarian party must never base its thinking, its pol- 
icies for revolution and its entire work on the assumption 
that the imperialists and reactionaries will accept peaceful 
transformation. 

The proletarian party must prepare itself for two even- 
tualities — while preparing for a peaceful development of the 
revolution, it must also fully prepare for a non-peaceful de- 
velopment. It should concentrate on the painstaking work of 
accumulating revolutionary strength, so that it will be ready 
to seize victory when the conditions for revolution are ripe 
or to strike powerful blows at the imperialists and the reac- 
tionaries when they launch surprise attacks and armed as- 
saults. 

If it fails to make such preparations, the proletarian party 
will paralyse the revolutionary will of the proletariat, disarm 
itself ideologically and sink into a totally passive state of 
unpreparedness both politically and organizationally, and the 
result will be to bury the proletarian revolutionary cause. 

12. All social revolutions in the various stages of the history 
of mankind are historically inevitable and are governed by 
objective laws independent of man's will. Moreover, history 
shows that there never was a revolution which was able to 
achieve victory without zigzags and sacrifices. 

With Marxist-Leninist theory as the basis, the task of the 
proletarian party is to analyse the concrete historical condi- 
tions, put forward the correct strategy and tactics, and guide 
the masses in bypassing hidden reefs, avoiding unnecessary 
sacrifices and reaching the goal step by step. Is it possible 
to avoid sacrifices altogether? Such is not the case with the 
slave revolutions, the serf revolutions, the bourgeois revolu- 
tions, or the national revolutions; nor is it the case with pro- 
letarian revolutions. Even if the guiding line of the revolu- 
tion is correct, it is impossible to have a sure guarantee 

21 



against setbacks and sacrifices in the course of the revolu- 
tion. So long as a correct line is adhered to, the revolution 
is bound to triumph in the end. To abandon revolution on the 
pretext of avoiding sacrifices is in reality to demand that the 
people should forever remain slaves and endure infinite pain 
and sacrifice. 

Elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that 
the birth pangs of a revolution are far less painful than the 
chronic agony of the old society. Lenin rightly said that 
"even with the most peaceful course of events, the present 
[capitalist] system always and inevitably exacts countless 
sacrifices from the working class". 1 

Whoever considers a revolution can be made only if every- 
thing is plain sailing, only if there is an advance guarantee 
against sacrifices and failure, is certainly no revolutionary. 

However difficult the conditions and whatever sacrifices 
and defeats the revolution may suffer, proletarian revolu- 
tionaries should educate the masses in the spirit of revolution 
and hold aloft the banner of revolution and not abandon it. 

It would be "Left" adventurism if the proletarian party 
should rashly launch a revolution before the objective con- 
ditions are ripe. But it would be Right opportunism if the 
proletarian party should not dare to lead a revolution and to 
seize state power when the objective conditions are ripe. 

Even in ordinary times, when it is leading the masses in 
the day-today struggle, the proletarian party should ideolog- 
ically, politically and organizationally prepare its own ranks 
and the masses for revolution and promote revolutionary 
struggles, so that it will not miss the opportunity to over- 
throw the reactionary regime and establish a new state power 
when the conditions for revolution are ripe. Otherwise, when 
the objective conditions are ripe, the proletarian party will 
simply throw away the opportunity of seizing victory. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Another Massacre", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1961, Vol. V, p. 25. 

22 



The proletarian party must be flexible as well as highly 
principled, and on occasion it must make such compromises 
as are necessary in the interests of the revolution. But it must 
never abandon principled policies and the goal of revolution 
on the pretext of flexibility and of necessary compromises. 

The proletarian party must lead the masses in waging strug- 
gles against the enemies, and it must know how to utilize the 
contradictions among those enemies. But the purpose of using 
these contradictions is to make it easier to attain the goal of 
the people's revolutionary struggles and not to liquidate these 
struggles. 

Countless facts have proved that, wherever the dark rule 
of imperialism and reaction exists, the people who form over 
90 per cent of the population will sooner or later rise in 
revolution. 

If Communists isolate themselves from the revolutionary 
demands of the masses, they are bound to lose the confidence 
of the masses and will be tossed to the rear by the revolution- 
ary current. 

If the leading group in any Party adopt a non-revolutionary 
line and convert it into a reformist party, then Marxist-Lenin- 
ists inside and outside the Party will replace them and lead 
the people in making revolution. In another kind of situation, 
the bourgeois revolutionaries will come forward to lead the 
revolution and the party of the proletariat will forfeit its 
leadership of the revolution. When the reactionary bourgeoisie 
betray the revolution and suppress the people, an opportunist 
line will cause tragic and unnecessary losses to the Commu- 
nists and the revolutionary masses. 

If Communists slide down the path of opportunism, they will 
degenerate into bourgeois nationalists and become appendages 
of the imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie. 

There are certain persons who assert that they have made 
the greatest creative contributions to revolutionary theory 
since Lenin and that they alone are correct. But it is very 
dubious whether they have ever really given consideration to 

23 



the extensive experience of the entire world communist move- 
ment, whether they have ever really considered the interests, 
the aims and tasks of the international proletarian movement 
as a whole, and whether they really have a general line for the 
international communist movement which conforms with 
Marxism-Leninism. 

In the last few years the international communist move- 
ment and the national liberation movement have had many 
experiences and many lessons. There are experiences which 
people should praise and there are experiences which make 
people grieve. Communists and revolutionaries in all countries 
should ponder and seriously study these experiences of suc- 
cess and failure, so as to draw correct conclusions and useful 
lessons from them. 

13. The socialist countries and the revolutionary struggles 
of the oppressed peoples and nations support and assist each 
other. 

The national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America and the revolutionary movements of the people in the 
capitalist countries are a strong support to the socialist coun- 
tries. It is completely wrong to deny this. 

The only attitude for the socialist countries to adopt towards 
the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and na- 
tions is one of warm sympathy and active support; they must 
not adopt a perfunctory attitude, or one of national selfishness 
or of great-power chauvinism. 

Lenin said, "The foreign policy of the proletariat is alliance 
with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with 
all the oppressed nations against all and any imperialists." 1 
Whoever fails to understand this point and considers that the 
support and aid given by the socialist countries to the op- 
pressed peoples and nations are a burden or charity is going 
counter to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

1 V. I. Lenin, "The Foreign Policy of the Russian Revolution", Col- 
lected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXV, 
p. 87. 

24 



The superiority of the socialist system and the achieve- 
ments of the socialist countries in construction play an ex- 
emplary role and are an inspiration to the oppressed peoples 
and the oppressed nations. 

But this exemplary role and inspiration can never replace 
the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and na- 
tions. No oppressed people or nation can win liberation except 
through its own staunch revolutionary struggle. 

Certain persons have one-sidedly exaggerated the role of 
peaceful competition between socialist and imperialist coun- 
tries in their attempt to substitute peaceful competition for the 
revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. 
According to their preaching, it would seem that imperialism 
will automatically collapse in the course of this peaceful com- 
petition and that the only thing the oppressed peoples and na- 
tions have to do is to wait quietly for the advent of this day. 
What does this have in common with Marxist-Leninist views? 

Moreover, certain persons have concocted the strange tale 
that China and some other socialist countries want "to unleash 
wars" and to spread socialism by "wars between states". As 
the Statement of 1960 points out, such tales are nothing but 
imperialist and reactionary slanders. To put it bluntly, the 
purpose of those who repeat these slanders is to hide the fact 
that they are opposed to revolutions by the oppressed peoples 
and nations of the world and opposed to others supporting such 
revolutions. 

14. In the last few years much — in fact a great deal — 
has been said on the question of war and peace. Our views and 
policies on this question are known to the world, and no 
one can distort them. 

It is a pity that although certain persons in the international 
communist movement talk about how much they love peace 
and hate war, they are unwilling to acquire even a faint 
understanding of the simple truth on war pointed out by Lenin. 

Lenin said: 

25 



It seems to me that the main thing that is usually forgotten 
on the question of war, which receives inadequate attention, 
the main reason why there is so much controversy, and, I 
would say, futile, hopeless and aimless controversy, is that 
people forget the fundamental question of the class character 
of the war; why the war broke out; the classes that are wag- 
ing it; the historical and historico-economic conditions that 
gave rise to it. 1 

As Marxist-Leninists see it, war is the continuation of pol- 
itics by other means, and every war is inseparable from the 
political system and the political struggles which give rise to 
it. If one departs from this scientific Marxist-Leninist proposi- 
tion which has been confirmed by the entire history of class 
struggle, one will never be able to understand either the ques- 
tion of war or the question of peace. 

There are different types of peace and different types of 
war. Marxist-Leninists must be clear about what type of peace 
or what type of war is in question. Lumping just wars and 
unjust wars together and opposing all of them undiscriminat- 
ingly is a bourgeois pacifist and not a Marxist-Leninist 
approach. 

Certain persons say that revolutions are entirely possible 
without war. Now which type of war are they referring to — 
a war of national liberation or a revolutionary civil war, or 
a world war? 

If they are referring to a war of national liberation or a 
revolutionary civil war, then this formulation is, in effect, 
opposed to revolutionary wars and to revolution. 

If they are referring to a world war, then they are shooting 
at a nonexistent target. Although Marxist-Leninists have 
pointed out, on the basis of the history of the two world wars, 
that world wars inevitably lead to revolution, no Marxist- 

1 V. I. Lenin, "War and Revolution", Collected Works, Russ. ed., 
State Publishing House for Political Literature, Moscow, 1949, Vol. 
XXIV, p. 362. 

26 



Leninist ever has held or ever will hold that revolution must 
be made through world war. 

Marxist-Leninists take the abolition of war as their ideal 
and believe that war can be abolished. 

But how can war be abolished? 

This is how Lenin viewed it: 

. . . our object is to achieve the socialist system of society, 
which, by abolishing the division of mankind into classes, 
by abolishing all exploitation of man by man, and of one 
nation by other nations, will inevitably abolish all possi- 
bility of war. 1 

The Statement of 1960 also puts it very clearly, "The victory 
of socialism all over the world will completely remove the 
social and national causes of all wars." 

However, certain persons now actually hold that it is pos- 
sible to bring about "a world without weapons, without armed 
forces and without wars" through "general and complete dis- 
armament" while the system of imperialism and of the 
exploitation of man by man still exists. This is sheer illusion. 

An elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us 
that the armed forces are the principal part of the state ma- 
chine and that a so-called world without weapons and with- 
out armed forces can only be a world without states. Lenin 
said: 

Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie 
will it be able, without betraying its world-historical mis- 
sion, to throw all armaments on the scrap heap; and the 
proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this 
condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before. 2 

What are the facts in the world today? Is there a shadow 
of evidence that the imperialist countries headed by the 



l Ibid., p. 363. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 574. 

27 



United States are ready to carry out general and complete 
disarmament? Are they not each and all engaged in general 
and complete arms expansion? 

We have always maintained that, in order to expose and 
combat the imperialists' arms expansion and war prepara- 
tions, it is necessary to put forward the proposal for general 
disarmament. Furthermore, it is possible to compel imperial- 
ism to accept some kind of agreement on disarmament, 
through the combined struggle of the socialist countries and 
the people of the whole world. 

If one regards general and complete disarmament as the 
fundamental road to world peace, spreads the illusion that 
imperialism will automatically lay down its arms and tries 
to liquidate the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peo- 
ples and nations on the pretext of disarmament, then this 
is deliberately to deceive the people of the world and help 
the imperialists in their policies of aggression and war. 

In order to overcome the present ideological confusion in 
the international working-class movement on the question of 
war and peace, we consider that Lenin's thesis, which has 
been discarded by the modern revisionists, must be restored 
in the interest of combating the imperialist policies of ag- 
gression and war and defending world peace. 

The people of the world universally demand the prevention 
of a new world war. And it is possible to prevent a new 
world war. 

The question then is, what is the way to secure world 
peace? According to the Leninist viewpoint, world peace 
can be won only by the struggles of the people in all coun- 
tries and not by begging the imperialists for it. World peace 
can only be effectively defended by relying on the develop- 
ment of the forces of the socialist camp, on the revolu- 
tionary struggles of the proletariat and working people of 
all countries, on the liberation struggles of the oppressed na- 
tions and on the struggles of all peace-loving people and 
countries. 

28 



Such is the Leninist policy. Any policy to the contrary 
definitely will not lead to world peace but will only en- 
courage the ambitions of the imperialists and increase the 
danger of world war. 

In recent years, certain persons have been spreading the 
argument that a single spark from a war of national libera- 
tion or from a revolutionary people's war will lead to a world 
conflagration destroying the whole of mankind. What are 
the facts? Contrary to what these persons say, the wars of 
national liberation and the revolutionary people's wars that 
have occurred since World War II have not led to world war. 
The victory of these revolutionary wars has directly weak- 
ened the forces of imperialism and greatly strengthened the 
forces which prevent the imperialists from launching a world 
war and which defend world peace. Do not the facts dem- 
onstrate the absurdity of this argument? 

15. The complete banning and destruction of nuclear 
weapons is an important task in the struggle to defend world 
peace. We must do our utmost to this end. 

Nuclear weapons are unprecedentedly destructive, which 
is why for more than a decade now the U.S. imperialists have 
been pursuing their policy of nuclear blackmail in order to 
realize their ambition of enslaving the people of all countries 
and dominating the world. 

But when the imperialists threaten other countries with 
nuclear weapons, they subject the people in their own country 
to the same threat, thus arousing them against nuclear weap- 
ons and against the imperialist policies of aggression and 
war. At the same time, in their vain hope of destroying their 
opponents with nuclear weapons, the imperialists are in fact 
subjecting themselves to the danger of being destroyed. 

The possibility of banning nuclear weapons does indeed 
exist. However, if the imperialists are forced to accept an 
agreement to ban nuclear weapons, it decidedly will not be 
because of their "love for humanity" but because of the pres- 

29 



sure of the people of all countries and for the sake of their 
own vital interests. 

In contrast to the imperialists, socialist countries rely upon 
the righteous strength of the people and on their own correct 
policies, and have no need whatever to gamble with nuclear 
weapons in the world arena. Socialist countries have nuclear 
weapons solely in order to defend themselves and to prevent 
imperialism from launching a nuclear war. 

In the view of Marxist-Leninists, the people are the makers 
of history. In the present, as in the past, man is the decisive 
factor. Marxist-Leninists attach importance to the role of 
technological change, but it is wrong to belittle the role of 
man and exaggerate the role of technology. 

The emergence of nuclear weapons can neither arrest the 
progress of human history nor save the imperialist system 
from its doom, any more than the emergence of new techniques 
could save the old systems from their doom in the past. 

The emergence of nuclear weapons does not and cannot re- 
solve the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary 
world, does not and cannot alter the law of class struggle, and 
does not and cannot change the nature of imperialism and 
reaction. 

It cannot, therefore, be said that with the emergence of 
nuclear weapons the possibility and the necessity of social 
and national revolutions have disappeared, or the basic prin- 
ciples of Marxism-Leninism, and especially the theories of 
proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat 
and of war and peace, have become outmoded and changed 
into stale "dogmas". 

16. It was Lenin who advanced the thesis that it is possible 
for the socialist countries to practise peaceful coexistence 
with the capitalist countries. It is well known that after the 
great Soviet people had repulsed foreign armed intervention 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Gov- 
ernment, led first by Lenin and then by Stalin, consistently 

30 



pursued the policy of peaceful coexistence and that they were 
forced to wage a war of self-defence only when attacked by 
the German imperialists. 

Since its founding, the People's Republic of China too has 
consistently pursued the policy of peaceful coexistence with 
countries having different social systems, and it is China which 
initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. 

However, a few years ago certain persons suddenly claimed 
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence as their own "great 
discovery". They maintain that they have a monopoly on the 
interpretation of this policy. They treat "peaceful coexistence" 
as if it were an all-inclusive, mystical book from heaven and 
attribute to it every success the people of the world achieve 
by struggle. What is more, they label all who disagree with 
their distortions of Lenin's views as opponents of peaceful 
coexistence, as people completely ignorant of Lenin and Lenin- 
ism, and as heretics deserving to be burnt at the stake. 

How can the Chinese Communists agree with this view and 
practice? They cannot, it is impossible. 

Lenin's principle of peaceful coexistence is very clear and 
readily comprehensible by ordinary people. Peaceful coexist- 
ence designates a relationship between countries with differ- 
ent social systems, and must not be interpreted as one pleases. 
It should never be extended to apply to the relations between 
oppressed and oppressor nations, between oppressed and 
oppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressor 
classes, and never be described as the main content of the 
transition from capitalism to socialism, still less should it 
be asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind's road to 
socialism. The reason is that it is one thing to practise peaceful 
coexistence between countries with different social systems. 
It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries 
practising peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each 
other's social system. The class struggle, the struggle for 
national liberation and the transition from capitalism to social- 
ism in various countries are quite another thing. They are 

31 



all bitter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at 
changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot re- 
place the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transition 
from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be brought 
about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship 
of the proletariat in that country. 

In the application of the policy of peaceful coexistence, 
struggles between the socialist and imperialist countries are 
unavoidable in the political, economic and ideological spheres, 
and it is absolutely impossible to have "all-round co-operation". 

It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in nego- 
tiations of one kind or another with the imperialist countries. 
It is possible to reach certain agreements through negotiation 
by relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries 
and on the pressure of the people of all countries. But neces- 
sary compromises between the socialist countries and the 
imperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoples 
and nations to follow suit and compromise with imperialism 
and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the name of 
peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations 
should give up their revolutionary struggles. 

The application of the policy of peaceful coexistence by 
the socialist countries is advantageous for achieving a peaceful 
international environment for socialist construction, for expos- 
ing the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for 
isolating the imperialist forces of aggression and war. But 
if the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist 
countries is confined to peaceful coexistence, then it is im- 
possible to handle correctly either the relations between 
socialist countries or those between the socialist countries and 
the oppressed peoples and nations. Therefore it is wrong to 
make peaceful coexistence the general line of the foreign 
policy of the socialist countries. 

In our view, the general line of the foreign policy of the 
socialist countries should have the following content: 

32 



to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and 
cooperation among the countries in the socialist camp in 
accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; 

to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five 
Principles with countries having different social systems 
and oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; 
and, 

to support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all 
the oppressed peoples and nations. 

These three aspects are interrelated and indivisible, and not 
a single one can be omitted. 

17. For a very long historical period after the proletariat 
takes power, class struggle continues as an objective law 
independent of man's will, differing only in form from what 
it was before the taking of power. 

After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number 
of times that: 

a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand 
and one ways to recover the "paradise" they have been 
deprived of. 

b. New elements of capitalism are constantly and spon- 
taneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere. 

c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements 
may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among 
government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence 
and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty 
bourgeoisie. 

d. The external conditions for the continuance of class 
struggle within a socialist country are encirclement by 
international capitalism, the imperialists' threat of armed 
intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish 
peaceful disintegration. 

Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin's. 

33 



For decades or even longer periods after socialist industriali- 
zation and agricultural collectivization, it will be impossible 
to say that any socialist country will be free from those 
elements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bour- 
geois hangers-on, parasites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, 
hooligans and embezzlers of state funds; or to say that a 
socialist country will no longer need to perform or be able 
to relinquish the task laid down by Lenin of conquering "this 
contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited 
from capitalism". 

In a socialist country, it takes a very long historical period 
gradually to settle the question of who will win — socialism 
or capitalism. The struggle between the road of socialism 
and the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical 
period. This struggle rises and falls in a wave-like manner, 
at times becoming very fierce, and the forms of the struggle 
are many and varied. 

The 1957 Declaration rightly states that "the conquest of 
power by the working class is only the beginning of the 
revolution, not its conclusion". 

To deny the existence of class struggle in the period of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of thoroughly 
completing the socialist revolution on the economic, political 
and ideological fronts is wrong, does not correspond to objec- 
tive reality and violates Marxism-Leninism. 

18. Both Marx and Lenin maintained that the entire period 
before the advent of the higher stage of communist society 
is the period of transition from capitalism to communism, the 
period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this transition 
period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, the 
proletarian state, goes through the dialectical process of 
establishment, consolidation, strengthening and withering 
away. 

In the "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx posed 
the question as follows: 

34 



Between capitalist and communist society lies the period 
of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. 
There corresponds to this also a political transition period 
in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary 
dictatorship of the proletariat. 1 

Lenin frequently emphasized Marx's great theory of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat and analysed the development 
of this theory, particularly in his outstanding work, "The State 
and Revolution", where he wrote: 

. . . the transition from capitalist society — which is 
developing towards communism — to a communist society 
is impossible without a "political transition period", and 
the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dicta- 
torship of the proletariat. 2 

He further said: 

The essence of Marx's teaching on the state has been 
mastered only by those who understand that the dictatorship 
of a single class is necessary not only for every class society 
in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown 
the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period 
which separates capitalism from "classless society", from 
communism. 3 

As slated above, the fundamental thesis of Marx and Lenin 
is that the dictatorship of the proletariat will inevitably con- 
tinue for the entire historical period of the transition from 
capitalism to communism, that is, for the entire period up to 
the abolition of all class differences and the entry into a 
classless society, the higher stage of communist society. 

What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, that 
the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary? 

1 Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1955, Vol. II, pp. 32-33. 

2 V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, 
Part 1, p. 289. 

ilbid., p. 234. 

35 



Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of 
Marx and Lenin on the state of the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat? 

Does this not license the development of "this contagion, 
this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from cap- 
italism"? 

In other words, this would lead to extremely grave con- 
sequences and make any transition to communism out of the 
question. 

Can there be a "state of the whole people"? Is it possible to 
replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a 
"state of the whole people"? 

This is not a question about the internal affairs of any par- 
ticular country but a fundamental problem involving the 
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. 

In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as 
a non-class or supra-class state. So long as the state remains 
a state, it must bear a class character; so long as the state 
exists, it cannot be a state of the "whole people". As soon 
as society becomes classless, there will no longer be a state. 

Then what sort of thing would a "state of the whole people" 
be? 

Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism can understand that the so-called "state of the whole 
people" is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figures 
have always called the bourgeois state a "state of all the 
people", or a "state in which power belongs to all the people". 

Certain persons may say that their society is already one 
without classes. We answer: No, there are classes and class 
struggles in all socialist countries without exception. 

Since remnants of the old exploiting classes who are trying 
to stage a comeback still exist there, since new capitalist 
elements are constantly being generated there, and since there 
are still parasites, speculators, idlers, hooligans, embezzlers 
of state funds, etc., how can it be said that classes or class 

36 



struggles no longer exist? How can it be said that the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat is no longer necessary? 

Marxism-Leninism tells us that in addition to the suppres- 
sion of the hostile classes, the historical tasks of the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat in the course of building socialism 
necessarily include the correct handling of relations between 
the working class and peasantry, the consolidation of their 
political and economic alliance and the creation of conditions 
for the gradual elimination of the class difference between 
worker and peasant. 

When we look at the economic base of any socialist society, 
we find that the difference between ownership by the whole 
people and collective ownership exists in all socialist coun- 
tries without exception, and that there is individual ownership 
too. Ownership by the whole people and collective ownership 
are two kinds of ownership and two kinds of relations of pro- 
duction in socialist society. The workers in enterprises owned 
by the whole people and the peasants on farms owned collec- 
tively belong to two different categories of labourers in social- 
ist society. Therefore, the class difference between worker 
and peasant exists in all socialist countries without exception. 
This difference will not disappear until the transition to the 
higher stage of communism is achieved. In their present level 
of economic development all socialist countries are still far, 
far removed from the higher stage of communism in which 
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his 
needs" is put into practice. Therefore, it will take a long, long 
time to eliminate the class difference between worker and 
peasant. And until this difference is eliminated, it is impos- 
sible to say that society is classless or that there is no longer 
any need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In calling a socialist state the "state of the whole people" 
is one trying to replace the Marxist-Leninist theory of the 
state by the bourgeois theory of the state? Is one trying to 
replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a 
state of a different character? 

37 



If that is the case, it is nothing but a great historical ret- 
rogression. The degeneration of the social system in Yugo- 
slavia is a grave lesson. 

19. Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist 
together with the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialist 
countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for 
the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat. The reason is that the dictatorship of the proletariat 
has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of 
the people, remould the peasants and other small producers, 
constantly consolidate the proletarian ranks, build socialism 
and effect the transition to communism; none of these things 
can be done without the leadership of the party of the pro- 
letariat. 

Can there be a "party of the entire people"? Is it possible 
to replace the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat 
by a "party of the entire people"? 

This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any 
particular Party, but a fundamental problem involving the 
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. 

In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as 
a non-class or supra-class political party. All political parties 
have a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated ex- 
pression of class character. 

The party of the proletariat is the only party able to 
represent the interests of the whole people. It can do so pre- 
cisely because it represents the interests of the proletariat, 
whose ideas and will it concentrates. It can lead the whole 
people because the proletariat can finally emancipate itself 
only with the emancipation of all mankind, because the very 
nature of the proletariat enables its party to approach prob- 
lems in terms of its present and future interests, because 
the party is boundlessly loyal to the people and has the spirit 
of self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and iron dis- 
cipline. Without such a party, it is impossible to maintain the 

38 



dictatorship of the proletariat and to represent the interests 
of the whole people. 

What will happen if it is announced halfway before entering 
the higher stage of communist society that the party of the 
proletariat has become a "party of the entire people" and if 
its proletarian class character is repudiated? 

Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of 
Marx and Lenin on the party of the proletariat? 

Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the working 
people, organizationally and ideologically, and is it not tan- 
tamount to helping restore capitalism? 

Is it not "going south by driving the chariot north" to talk 
about any transition to communist society in such circum- 
stances? 

20. Over the past few years, certain persons have violated 
Lenin's integral teachings about the interrelationship of 
leaders, party, class and masses, and raised the issue of "com- 
bating the cult of the individual"; this is erroneous and 
harmful. 

The theory propounded by Lenin is as follows: 

a. The masses are divided into classes. 

b. Classes are usually led by political parties. 

c. Political parties, as a general rule, are directed by 
more or less stable groups composed of the most authorita- 
tive, influential and experienced members, who are elected 
to the most responsible positions and are called leaders. 

Lenin said, "All this is elementary." 

The party of the proletariat is the headquarters of the pro- 
letariat in revolution and struggle. Every proletarian party 
must practise centralism based on democracy and establish a 
strong Marxist-Leninist leadership before it can become an 
organized and battle-worthy vanguard. To raise the question 
of "combating the cult of the individual" is actually to coun- 
terpose the leaders to the masses, undermine the party's 

39 



unified leadership which is based on democratic centralism, 
dissipate its fighting strength and disintegrate its ranks. 

Lenin criticized the erroneous views which counterpose the 
leaders to the masses. He called them "ridiculously absurd 
and stupid". 

The Communist Party of China has always disapproved of 
exaggerating the role of the individual, has advocated and 
persistently practised democratic centralism within the Party 
and advocated the linking of the leadership with the masses, 
maintaining that correct leadership must know how to con- 
centrate the views of the masses. 

While loudly combating the so-called "cult of the individ- 
ual", certain persons are in reality doing their best to defame 
the proletarian party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
At the same time, they are enormously exaggerating the role 
of certain individuals, shifting all errors onto others and 
claiming all credit for themselves. 

What is more serious is that, under the pretext of "com- 
bating the cult of the individual", certain persons are crudely 
interfering in the internal affairs of other fraternal Parties 
and fraternal countries and forcing other fraternal Parties to 
change their leadership in order to impose their own wrong 
line on these Parties. What is all this if not great-power 
chauvinism, sectarianism and splittism? What is all this if 
not subversion? 

It is high time to propagate seriously and comprehensively 
Lenin's integral teachings on the interrelationship of leaders, 
party, class and masses. 

21. Relations between socialist countries are international 
relations of a new type. Relations between socialist countries, 
whether large or small, and whether more developed or less 
developed economically, must be based on the principles of 
complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, sovereignty 
and independence, and non-interference in each other's in- 
ternal affairs, and must also be based on the principles of 

40 



mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with pro- 
letarian internationalism. 

Every socialist country must rely mainly on itself for its 
construction. 

In accordance with its own concrete conditions, every social- 
ist country must rely first of all on the diligent labour and 
talents of its own people, utilize all its available resources 
fully and in a planned way, and bring all its potential into 
play in socialist construction. Only thus can it build socialism 
effectively and develop its economy speedily. 

This is the only way for each socialist country to strengthen 
the might of the entire socialist camp and enhance its capacity 
to assist the revolutionary cause of the international pro- 
letariat. Therefore, to observe the principle of mainly relying 
on oneself in construction is to apply proletarian interna- 
tionalism concretely. 

If, proceeding only from its own partial interests, any 
socialist country unilaterally demands that other fraternal 
countries submit to its needs, and uses the pretext of opposing 
what they call "going it alone" and "nationalism" to prevent 
other fraternal countries from applying the principle of re- 
lying mainly on their own efforts in their construction and 
from developing their economies on the basis of independence, 
or even goes to the length of putting economic pressure on 
other fraternal countries — then these are pure manifestations 
of national egoism. 

It is absolutely necessary for socialist countries to practise 
mutual economic assistance and co-operation and exchange. 
Such economic co-operation must be based on the principles 
of complete equality, mutual benefit and comradely mutual 
assistance. 

It would be great-power chauvinism to deny these basic 
principles and, in the name of "international division of 
labour" or "specialization", to impose one's own will on others, 
infringe on the independence and sovereignty of fraternal 
countries or harm the interests of their people. 

41 



In relations among socialist countries it would be preposter- 
ous to follow the practice of gaining profit for oneself at the 
expense of others, a practice characteristic of relations among 
capitalist countries, or go so far as to take the "economic in- 
tegration" and the "common market", which monopoly capital- 
ist groups have instituted for the purpose of seizing markets 
and grabbing profits, as examples which socialist countries 
ought to follow in their economic co-operation and mutual 
assistance. 

22. The 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement lay down 
the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties. 
These are the principle of solidarity, the principle of mutual 
support and mutual assistance, the principle of independence 
and equality and the principle of reaching unanimity through 
consultation — all on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and pro- 
letarian internationalism. 

We note that in its letter of March 30 the Central Committee 
of the CPSU says that there are no "higher-ranking" and "sub- 
ordinate" Parties in the communist movement, that all Com- 
munist Parties are independent and equal, and that they 
should all build their relations on the basis of proletarian in- 
ternationalism and mutual assistance. 

It is a fine quality of Communists that their deeds are con- 
sistent with their words. The only correct way to safeguard 
and strengthen unity among the fraternal Parties is genuinely 
to adhere to, and not to violate, the principle of proletarian 
internationalism and genuinely to observe, and not to under- 
mine, the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties 
— and to do so, not only in words but, much more important, 
in deeds. 

If the principle of independence and equality is accepted 
in relations among fraternal Parties, then it is impermissible 
for any Party to place itself above others, to interfere in their 
internal affairs, and to adopt patriarchal ways in relations 
with them. 

42 



If it is accepted that there are no "superiors" and "subor- 
dinates" in relations among fraternal Parties, then it is im- 
permissible to impose the programme, resolutions and line 
of one's own Party on other fraternal Parties as the "com- 
mon programme" of the international communist movement. 

If the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation 
is accepted in relations among fraternal Parties, then one 
should not emphasize "who is in the majority" or "who is in 
the minority" and bank on a so-called majority in order to 
force through one's own erroneous line and carry out sectarian 
and splitting policies. 

If it is agreed that differences between fraternal Parties 
should be settled through inter-Party consultation, then other 
fraternal Parties should not be attacked publicly and by name 
at one's own congress or at other Party congresses, in speeches 
by Party leaders, resolutions, statements, etc.; and still less 
should the ideological differences among fraternal Parties be 
extended into the sphere of state relations. 

We hold that in the present circumstances, when there are 
differences in the international communist movement, it is 
particularly important to stress strict adherence to the prin- 
ciples guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down 
in the Declaration and the Statement. 

In the sphere of relations among fraternal Parties and 
countries, the question of Soviet-Albanian relations is an out- 
standing one at present. Here the question is what is the 
correct way to treat a fraternal Party and country and whether 
the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and 
countries stipulated in the Declaration and the Statement are 
to be adhered to. The correct solution of this question is an 
important matter of principle in safeguarding the unity of 
the socialist camp and the international communist movement. 

How to treat the Marxist-Leninist fraternal Albanian Party 
of Labour is one question. How to treat the Yugoslav revi- 
sionist clique of traitors to Marxism-Leninism is quite another 

43 



question. These two essentially different questions must on 
no account be placed on a par. 

Your letter says that you "do not relinquish the hope that 
the relations between the CPSU and the Albanian Party of 
Labour may be improved", but at the same time you continue to 
attack the Albanian comrades for what you call "splitting ac- 
tivities". Clearly this is self-contradictory and in no way con- 
tributes to resolving the problem of Soviet-Albanian relations. 

Who is it that has taken splitting actions in Soviet-Albanian 
relations? 

Who is it that has extended the ideological differences be- 
tween the Soviet and Albanian Parties to state relations? 

Who is it that has brought the divergences between the 
Soviet and Albanian Parties and between the two countries 
into the open before the enemy? 

Who is it that has openly called for a change in the Albanian 
Party and state leadership? 

All this is plain and clear to the whole world. 

Is it possible that the leading comrades of the CPSU do 
not really feel their responsibility for the fact that Soviet- 
Albanian relations have so seriously deteriorated? 

We once again express our sincere hope that the leading 
comrades of the CPSU will observe the principles guiding 
relations among fraternal Parties and countries and take the 
initiative in seeking an effective way to improve Soviet- 
Albanian relations. 

In short, the question of how to handle relations with 
fraternal Parties and countries must be taken seriously. Strict 
adherence to the principles guiding relations among fraternal 
Parties and countries is the only way forcefully to rebuff 
slanders such as those spread by the imperialists and reac- 
tionaries about the "hand of Moscow". 

Proletarian internationalism is demanded of all Parties 
without exception, whether large or small, and whether in 
power or not. However, the larger Parties and the Parties in 
power bear a particularly heavy responsibility in this respect. 

44 



The series of distressing developments which have occurred 
in the socialist camp in the past period have harmed the in- 
terests not only of the fraternal Parties concerned but also 
of the masses of the people in their countries. This con- 
vincingly demonstrates that the larger countries and Parties 
need to keep in mind Lenin's behest never to commit the 
error of great-power chauvinism. 

The comrades of the CPSU state in their letter that "the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union has never taken and 
will never take a single step that could sow hostility among 
the peoples of our country towards the fraternal Chinese 
people or other peoples". Here we do not desire to go back 
and enumerate the many unpleasant events that have occurred 
in the past, and we only wish that the comrades of the CPSU 
will strictly abide by this statement in their future actions. 

During the past few years, our Party members and our 
people have exercised the greatest restraint in the face of a 
series of grave incidents which were in violation of the prin- 
ciples guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries 
and despite the many difficulties and losses which have been 
imposed on us. The spirit of proletarian internationalism of 
the Chinese Communists and the Chinese people has stood a 
severe test. 

The Communist Party of China is unswervingly loyal to 
proletarian internationalism, upholds and defends the prin- 
ciples of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement guiding 
relations among fraternal Parties and countries, and safe- 
guards and strengthens the unity of the socialist camp and 
the international communist movement. 

23. In order to carry out the common programme of the 
international communist movement unanimously agreed upon 
by the fraternal Parties, an uncompromising struggle must 
be waged against all forms of opportunism, which is a devia- 
tion from Marxism-Leninism. 

The Declaration and the Statement point out that revision- 
ism, or, in other words, Right opportunism, is the main danger 

45 



in the international communist movement. Yugoslav revision- 
ism typifies modern revisionism. 
The Statement points out particularly: 

The Communist Parties have unanimously condemned 
the Yugoslav variety of international opportunism, a variety 
of modern revisionist "theories" in concentrated form. 

It goes on to say: 

After betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed 
obsolete, the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugo- 
slavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisionist programme to 
the Declaration of 1957; they set the League of Communists 
of Yugoslavia against the international communist move- 
ment as a whole, severed their country from the socialist 
camp, made it dependent on so-called "aid" from U.S. and 
other imperialists. . . . 

The Statement says further: 

The Yugoslav revisionists carry on subversive work 
against the socialist camp and the world communist move- 
ment. Under the pretext of an extra-bloc policy, they 
engage in activities which prejudice the unity of all the 
peace-loving forces and countries. 

Therefore, it draws the following conclusion: 

Further exposure of the leaders of Yugoslav revisionists 
and active struggle to safeguard the communist movement 
and the working-class movement from the anti-Leninist 
ideas of the Yugoslav revisionists, remains an essential task 
of the Marxist-Leninist Parties. 

The question raised here is an important one of principle 
for the international communist movement. 

Only recently the Tito clique have publicly stated that they 
are persisting in their revisionist programme and anti-Marxist- 
Leninist stand in opposition to the Declaration and the State- 
ment. 

46 



U.S. imperialism and its NATO partners have spent several 
thousand millions of U.S. dollars nursing the Tito clique for 
a long time. Cloaked as "Marxist-Leninists" and flaunting 
the banner of a "socialist country", the Tito clique has been 
undermining the international communist movement and the 
revolutionary cause of the people of the world, serving as a 
special detachment of U.S. imperialism. 

It is completely groundless and out of keeping with the 
facts to assert that Yugoslavia is showing "definite positive 
tendencies", that it is a "socialist country", and that the Tito 
clique is an "anti-imperialist force". 

Certain persons are now attempting to introduce the 
Yugoslav revisionist clique into the socialist community and 
the international communist ranks. This is openly to tear up 
the agreement unanimously reached at the 1960 meeting of 
the fraternal Parties and is absolutely impermissible. 

Over the past few years, the revisionist trend flooding the 
international working-class movement and the many experi- 
ences and lessons of the international communist movement 
have fully confirmed the correctness of the conclusion in the 
Declaration and the Statement that revisionism is the main 
danger in the international communist movement at present. 

However, certain persons are openly saying that dogmatism 
and not revisionism is the main danger, or that dogmatism is 
every bit as dangerous as revisionism, etc. What sort of prin- 
ciple underlies all this? 

Firm Marxist-Leninists and genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties 
must put principles first. They must not barter away princi- 
ples, approving one thing today and another tomorrow, 
advocating one thing today and another tomorrow. 

Together with all Marxist-Leninists, the Chinese Com- 
munists will continue to wage an uncompromising struggle 
against modern revisionism in order to defend the purity of 
Marxism-Leninism and the principled stand of the Declaration 
and the Statement. 

47 



While combating revisionism, which is the main danger in 
the international communist movement, Communists must 
also combat dogmatism. 

As stated in the 1957 Declaration, proletarian parties 
"should firmly adhere to the principle of combining . . . 
universal Marxist-Leninist truth with the specific practice of 
revolution and construction in their countries". 

That is to say: 

On the one hand, it is necessary at all times to adhere to 
the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. Failure to do so 
will lead to Right opportunist or revisionist errors. 

On the other hand, it is always necessary to proceed from 
reality, maintain close contact with the masses, constantly 
sum up the experience of mass struggles, and independently 
work out and apply policies and tactics suited to the conditions 
of one's own country. Errors of dogmatism will be committed 
if one fails to do so, if one mechanically copies the policies and 
tactics of another Communist Party, submits blindly to the 
will of others or accepts without analysis the programme and 
resolutions of another Communist Party as one's own line. 

Some people are now violating this basic principle, which 
was long ago affirmed in the Declaration. On the pretext of 
"creatively developing Marxism-Leninism", they cast aside 
the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, they 
describe as "universal Marxist-Leninist truths" their own 
prescriptions which are based on nothing but subjective con- 
jecture and are divorced from reality and from the masses, 
and they force others to accept these prescriptions uncondi- 
tionally. 

That is why many grave phenomena have come to pass in 
the international communist movement. 

24. A most important lesson from the experience of the 
international communist movement is that the development 
and victory of a revolution depend on the existence of a revolu- 
tionary proletarian party. 

There must be a revolutionary party. 

48 



There must be a revolutionary party built according to the 
revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism- 
Leninism. 

There must be a revolutionary party able to integrate the 
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete prac- 
tice of the revolution in its own country. 

There must be a revolutionary party able to link the 
leadership closely with the broad masses of the people. 

There must be a revolutionary party that perseveres in the 
truth, corrects its errors and knows how to conduct criticism 
and self-criticism. 

Only such a revolutionary party can lead the proletariat and 
the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and 
its lackeys, winning a thorough victory in the national 
democratic revolution and winning the socialist revolution. 

If a party is not a proletarian revolutionary party but a 
bourgeois reformist party; 

If it is not a Marxist-Leninist party but as revisionist party; 

If it is not a vanguard party of the proletariat but a party 
tailing after the bourgeoisie; 

If it is not a party representing the interests of the proletariat 
and all the working people but a party representing the in- 
terests of the labour aristocracy; 

If it is not an internationalist party but a nationalist party; 

If it is not a party that can use its brains to think for itself 
and acquire an accurate knowledge of the trends of the dif- 
ferent classes in its own country through serious investigation 
and study, and knows how to apply the universal truth of 
Marxism-Leninism and integrate it with the concrete practice 
of its own country, but instead is a party that parrots the 
words of others, copies foreign experience without analysis, 
runs hither and thither in response to the baton of certain 
persons abroad, and has become a hodgepodge of revisionism, 
dogmatism and everything but Marxists-Leninist principle; 

Then such a party is absolutely inculpable of leading the 
proletariat and the masses in revolutionary struggle, absolutely 

49 



incapable of winning the revolution and absolutely incapable 
of fulfilling the great historical mission of the proletariat. 

This is a question all Marxist-Leninists, all class-conscious 
workers and all progressive people everywhere need to ponder 
deeply. 

25. It is the duty of Marxist-Leninists to distinguish 
between truth and falsehood with respect to the differences 
that have arisen in the international communist movement. 
In the common interest of the unity for struggle against the 
enemy, we have always advocated solving problems through 
inter-Party consultations and opposed bringing differences 
into the open before the enemy. 

As the comrades of the CPSU know, the public polemics in 
the international communist movement have been provoked 
by certain fraternal Party leaders and forced on us. 

Since a public debate has been provoked, it ought to be 
conducted on the basis of equality among fraternal Parties 
and of democracy, and by presenting the facts and reasoning 
things out. 

Since certain Party leaders have publicly attacked other 
fraternal Parties and provoked a public debate, it is our opinion 
that they have no reason or right to forbid the fraternal 
Parties attacked to make public replies. 

Since certain Party leaders have published innumerable 
articles attacking other fraternal Parties, why do they not 
publish in their own press the articles those Parties have 
written, in reply? 

Latterly, the Communist Party of China has been subjected 
to preposterous attacks. The attackers have raised a great 
hue and cry and, disregarding the facts, have fabricated many 
charges against us. We have published these articles and 
speeches attacking us in our own press. 

We have also published in full in our press the Soviet leader's 
report at the meeting of the Supreme Soviet on December 
12, 1962, the Pravda Editorial Board's article of January 7, 

50 



1963, the speech of the head of the CPSU delegation at the 
Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany on 
January 16, 1963 and the Pravda Editorial Board's article of 
February 10, 1963. 

We have also published the full text of the two letters from 
the Central Committee of the CPSU dated February 21 and 
March 30, 1963. 

We have replied to some of the articles and speeches in 
which fraternal Parties have attacked us, but have not yet 
replied to others. For example, we have not directly replied 
to the many articles and speeches of the comrades of the 
CPSU. 

Between December 15, 1962 and March 8, 1963, we wrote 
seven articles in reply to our attackers. These articles are 
entitled: 

"Workers of All Countries, Unite, Oppose Our Common 
Enemy!", 

"The Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us", 

"Leninism and Modern Revisionism", 

"Let Us Unite on the Basis of the Moscow Declaration and 
the Moscow Statement", 

"Whence the Differences? — A Reply to Thorez and Other 
Comrades", 

"More on the Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and 
Us — Some Important Problems of Leninism in the Contem- 
porary World", 

"A Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of 
the U.S.A.". 

Presumably, you are referring to these articles when to- 
wards the end of your letter of March 30 you accuse the 
Chinese press of making "groundless attacks" on the CPSU. 
It is turning things upside down to describe articles replying 
to our attackers as "attacks". 

Since you describe our articles as "groundless" and as so 
very bad, why do you not publish all seven of these "ground- 
less attacks", in the same way as we have published your 

51 



articles, and let all the Soviet comrades and Soviet people 
think for themselves and judge who is right and who wrong? 
You are of course entitled to make a point-by-point refutation 
of these articles you consider "groundless attacks". 

Although you call our articles "groundless" and our argu- 
ments wrong, you do not tell the Soviet people what our argu- 
ments actually are. This practice can hardly be described as 
showing a serious attitude towards the discussion of problems 
by fraternal Parties, towards the truth or towards the masses. 

We hope that the public debate among fraternal Parties can 
be stopped. This is a problem that has to be dealt with in 
accordance with the principles of independence, of equality 
and of reaching unanimity through consultation among fra- 
ternal Parties. In the international communist movement, no 
one has the right to launch attacks whenever he wants, or to 
order the "ending of open polemics" whenever he wants to 
prevent the other side from replying. 

It is known to the comrades of the CPSU that, in order to 
create a favourable atmosphere for convening the meeting of 
the fraternal Parties, we have decided temporarily to suspend, 
as from March 9, 1963, public replies to the public attacks 
directed by name against us by comrades of fraternal Parties. 
We reserve the right of public reply. 

In our letter of March 9, we said that on the question of 
suspending public debate "it is necessary that our two Parties 
and the fraternal Parties concerned should have some discus- 
sion and reach an agreement that is fair and acceptable to all". 



The foregoing are our views regarding the general line of 
the international communist movement and some related 
questions of principle. We hope, as we indicated at the 
beginning of this letter, that the frank presentation of our 
views will be conducive to mutual understanding. Of course, 
comrades may agree or disagree with these views. But in 
our opinion, the questions we discuss here are the crucial 

52 



questions calling for attention and solution by the international 
communist movement. We hope that all these questions and 
also those raised in your letter will be fully discussed in the 
talks between our two Parties and at the meeting of represent- 
atives of all the fraternal Parties. 

In addition, there are other questions of common concern, 
such as the criticism of Stalin and some important matters of 
principle regarding the international communist movement 
which were raised at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the 
CPSU, and we hope that on these questions, too, there will be 
a frank exchange of opinion in the talks. 

With regard to the talks between our two Parties, in our 
letter of March 9 we proposed that Comrade Khrushchov come 
to Peking; if this was not convenient, we proposed that another 
responsible comrade of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
lead a delegation to Peking or that we send a delegation to 
Moscow. 

Since you have stated in your letter of March 30 that 
Comrade Khrushchov cannot come to China, and since you 
have not expressed a desire to send a delegation to China, the 
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has de- 
cided to send a delegation to Moscow. 

In your letter of March 30, you invited Comrade Mao Tse- 
tung to visit the Soviet Union. As early as February 23, 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung in his conversation with the Soviet 
Ambassador to China clearly stated the reason why he was 
not prepared to visit the Soviet Union at the present time. 
You were well aware of this. 

When a responsible comrade of the Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of China received the Soviet Ambassador 
to China on May 9, he informed you that we would send a 
delegation to Moscow in the middle of June. Later, in com- 
pliance with the request of the Central Committee of the 
CPSU, we agreed to postpone the talks between our two 
Parties to July 5. 

53 



We sincerely hope that the talks between the Chinese and 
Soviet Parties will yield positive results and contribute to the 
preparations for convening the meeting of all Communist and 
Workers' Parties. 

It is now more than ever necessary for all Communists to 
unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian inter- 
nationalism and of the Declaration and the Statement unani- 
mously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties. 

Together with Marxist-Leninist Parties and revolutionary 
people the world over, the Communist Party of China will 
continue its unremitting efforts to uphold the interests of the 
socialist camp and the international communist movement, the 
cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples and nations, 
and the struggle against imperialism and for world peace. 

We hope that events which grieve those near and dear to us 
and only gladden the enemy will not recur in the international 
communist movement in the future. 

The Chinese Communists firmly believe that the Marxist- 
Leninists, the proletariat and the revolutionary people every- 
where will unite more closely, overcome all difficulties and 
obstacles and win still greater victories in the struggle against 
imperialism and for world peace, and in the fight for the 
revolutionary cause of the people of the world and the cause 
of international communism. 

Workers of all countries, unite! Workers and oppressed 
peoples and nations of the world, unite! Oppose our common 
enemy! 

With communist greetings, 

The Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of China 



THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT 

OF THE DIFFERENCES 

BETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP OF 

THE CPSU AND OURSELVES 

Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
(People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(September 6, 1963) 



IT is more than a month since the Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union published its 
Open Letter of July 14 to Party organizations and all Com- 
munists in the Soviet Union. This Open Letter, and the steps 
taken by the leadership of the CPSU since its publication, 
have pushed Sino-Soviet relations to the brink of a split and 
have carried the differences in the international communist 
movement to a new stage of unprecedented gravity. 

Now Moscow, Washington, New Delhi and Belgrade are 
joined in a love feast and the Soviet press is running an 
endless assortment of fantastic stories and theories attacking 
China. The leadership of the CPSU has allied itself with 
U.S. imperialism, the Indian reactionaries and the renegade 
Tito clique against socialist China and against all Marxist- 
Leninist Parties, in open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and 
proletarian internationalism, in brazen repudiation of the 1957 
Declaration and the 1960 Statement and in flagrant violation 
of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual 
Assistance. 

The present differences within the international commu- 
nist movement and between the Chinese and Soviet Parties 
involve a whole series of important questions of principle. 
In its letter of June 14 to the Central Committee of the 
CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC systematically and 
comprehensively discussed the essence of these differences. 
It pointed out that, in the last analysis, the present differ- 
ences within the international communist movement and 
between the Chinese and Soviet Parties involve the questions 
of whether or not to accept the revolutionary principles of 
the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement, whether or not 
to accept Marxism-Leninism and proletarian international- 
ism, whether or not there is need for revolution, whether or 

57 



not imperialism is to be opposed, and whether or not the 
unity of the socialist camp and the international communist 
movement is desired. 

How have the differences in the international communist 
movement and between the leadership of the CPSU and our- 
selves arisen? And how have they grown to their present 
serious dimensions? Everybody is concerned about these 
questions. 

In our article "Whence the Differences?" 1 we dealt with 
the origin and growth of the differences in the international 
communist movement in general outline. We deliberately 
refrained from giving certain facts concerning this question, 
and particularly certain important facts involving the leader- 
ship of the CPSU, and left the leadership of the CPSU some 
leeway, though we were ready to provide a fuller picture and 
to thrash out the rights and wrongs when necessary. Now 
that the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
has told many lies about the origin and development of the 
differences and completely distorted the facts, it has become 
necessary for us to set forth certain facts in order to explain 
the matter in greater detail. 

In its Open Letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU 
dares not state the truth to its Party members and the masses 
of the people. Instead of being open and above-board and 
respecting the facts as Marxist-Leninists should, the leader- 
ship of the CPSU resorts to the customary practice of bour- 
geois politicians, distorting the facts and confusing truth and 
falsehood in its determined attempt to shift the blame for 
the emergence and growth of the differences on to the Chi- 
nese Communist Party. 

Lenin once said, "Honesty in politics is the result of 
strength; hypocrisy is the result of weakness." 2 Honesty and 
respect for the facts mark the attitude of Marxist-Leninists. 

1 Renmin Ribao editorial, February 27, 1963. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Polemical Notes", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1963, Vol. XVII, p. 166. 

58 



Only those who have degenerated politically depend on telling 
lies for a living. 

The facts are most eloquent. Facts are the best witness. 
Let us look at the facts. 



THE DIFFERENCES BEGAN WITH THE 
20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU 

There is a saying, "It takes more than one cold day for 
the river to freeze three feet deep." The present differences 
in the international communist movement did not, of course, 
begin just today. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
spreads the notion that the differences in the international 
communist movement were started by "Long Live Leninism!" 
and two other articles which we published in April 1960. 
This is a big lie. 

What is the truth? 

The truth is that the whole series of differences of prin- 
ciple in the international communist movement began more 
than seven years ago. 

To be specific, it began with the 20th Congress of the 
CPSU in 1956. 

The 20th Congress of the CPSU was the first step along 
the road of revisionism taken by the leadership of the CPSU. 
From the 20th Congress to the present, the revisionist line 
of the leadership of the CPSU has gone through the process 
of emergence, formation, growth and systematization. And 
by a gradual process, too, people have come to understand 
more and more deeply the revisionist line of the CPSU 
leadership. 

From the very outset we held that a number of views 
advanced at the 20th Congress concerning the contemporary 
international struggle and the international communist move- 
ment were wrong, were violations of Marxism-Leninism. In 

59 



particular, the complete negation of Stalin on the pretext of 
"combating the personality cult" and the thesis of peaceful 
transition to socialism by "the parliamentary road" are gross 
errors of principle. 

The criticism of Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU 
was wrong both in principle and in method. 

Stalin's life was that of a great Marxist-Leninist, a great 
proletarian revolutionary. For thirty years after Lenin's death, 
Stalin was the foremost leader of the CPSU and the Soviet 
Government, as well as the recognized leader of the interna- 
tional communist movement and the standard-bearer of the 
world revolution. During his lifetime, Stalin made some se- 
rious mistakes, but compared to his great and meritorious deeds 
his mistakes are only secondary. 

Stalin rendered great services to the development of the 
Soviet Union and the international communist movement. In 
the article "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship 
of the Proletariat" published in April 1956, we said: 

After Lenin's death Stalin creatively applied and de- 
veloped Marxism-Leninism as the chief leader of the Party 
and the state. Stalin expressed the will and aspirations 
of the people, and proved himself an outstanding Marxist- 
Leninist fighter, in the struggle in defence of the legacy 
of Leninism against its enemies — the Trotskyites, Zino- 
vievites and other bourgeois agents. Stalin won the support 
of the Soviet people and played an important role in his- 
tory primarily because, together with the other leaders of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he defended 
Lenin's line on the industrialization of the Soviet Union 
and the collectivization of agriculture. By pursuing this 
line, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union brought 
about the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union and 
created the conditions for the victory of the Soviet Union 
in the war against Hitler; these victories of the Soviet peo- 
ple accorded with the interests of the working class of the 

60 



world and all progressive mankind. It was therefore 
natural that the name of Stalin was greatly honoured 
throughout the world. 1 

It was necessary to criticize Stalin's mistakes. But in his 
secret report to the 20th Congress, Comrade Khrushchov 
completely negated Stalin, and in doing so defamed the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat, defamed the socialist system, the 
great CPSU, the great Soviet Union and the international 
communist movement. Far from using a revolutionary prole- 
tarian party's method of criticism and self-criticism for the 
purpose of making an earnest and serious analysis and sum- 
mation of the historical experience of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, he treated Stalin as an enemy and shifted the 
blame for all mistakes on to Stalin alone. 

Khrushchov viciously and demagogically told a host of lies 
in his secret report, and threw around charges that Stalin 
had a "persecution mania", indulged in "brutal arbitrariness", 
took the path of "mass repressions and terror", "knew the 
country and agriculture only from films" and "planned opera- 
tions on a globe", that Stalin's leadership "became a serious 
obstacle in the path of Soviet social development", and so on 
and so forth. He completely obliterated the meritorious deeds 
of Stalin who led the Soviet people in waging resolute strug- 
gle against all internal and external foes and achieving great 
results in socialist transformation and socialist construction, 
who led the Soviet people in defending and consolidating the 
first socialist country in the world and winning the glorious 
victory in the anti-fascist war, and who defended and de- 
veloped Marxism-Leninism. 

In completely negating Stalin at the 20th Congress of the 
CPSU, Khrushchov in effect negated the dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the fundamental theories of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism which Stalin defended and developed. It was at that 

1 The Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Eng. 
ed., Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1964, p. 7. 

61 



Congress that Khrushchov, in his report, began the repudia- 
tion of Marxism-Leninism on a number of questions of prin- 
ciple. 

In his report to the 20th Congress, under the pretext that 
"radical changes" had taken place in the world situation, 
Khrushchov put forward the thesis of "peaceful transition". 
He said that the road of the October Revolution was "the 
only correct road in those historical conditions", but that as 
the situation had changed, it had become possible to effect 
the transition from capitalism to socialism "through the 
parliamentary road". In essence, this erroneous thesis is a 
clear revision of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the state 
and revolution and a clear denial of the universal significance 
of the road of the October Revolution. 

In his report, under the same pretext that "radical changes" 
had taken place in the world situation, Khrushchov also ques- 
tioned the continued validity of Lenin's teachings on im- 
perialism and on war and peace, and in fact tampered with 
Lenin's teachings. 

Khrushchev pictured the U.S. Government and its head as 
people resisting the forces of war, and not as representatives 
of the imperialist forces of war. He said, ". . . the advocates 
of settling outstanding issues by means of war still hold strong 
positions there [in the United States], and . . . they continue 
to exert big pressure on the President and the Administra- 
tion." He went on to say that the imperialists were beginning 
to admit that the positions-of-strength policy had failed and 
that "symptoms of a certain sobering up are appearing" 
among them. It was as much as saying that it was possible 
for the U.S. Government and its head not to represent the 
interests of the U.S. monopoly capital and for them to abandon 
their policies of war and aggression and that they had be- 
come forces defending peace. 

Khrushchov declared: "We want to be friends with the 
United States and to co-operate with it for peace and interna- 
tional security and also in the economic and cultural spheres." 

62 



This wrong view later developed into the line of "Soviet- 
U.S. co-operation for the settlement of world problems". 

Distorting Lenin's correct principle of peaceful coexistence 
between countries with different social systems, Khrushchov 
declared that peaceful coexistence was the "general line of 
the foreign policy" of the U.S.S.R. This amounted to exclud- 
ing from the general line of foreign policy of the socialist 
countries their mutual assistance and co-operation as well as 
assistance by them to the revolutionary struggles of the op- 
pressed peoples and nations, or to subordinating all this to 
the policy of so-called "peaceful coexistence". 

The questions raised by the leadership of the CPSU at the 
20th Congress, and especially the question of Stalin and of 
"peaceful transition", are by no means simply internal affairs 
of the CPSU; they are vital issues of common interest for 
all fraternal Parties. Without any prior consultation with the 
fraternal Parties, the leadership of the CPSU drew arbitrary 
conclusions; it forced the fraternal Parties to accept a fait 
accompli and, on the pretext of "combating the personality 
cult", crudely interfered in the internal affairs of fraternal 
Parties and countries and tried to subvert their leaderships, 
thus pushing its policy of sectarianism and splittism in the in- 
ternational communist movement. 

Subsequent developments show with increasing clarity 
that the revision and betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and 
proletarian internationalism by the leaders of the CPSU have 
grown out of the above errors. 

The CPC has always differed in principle in its view of the 
20th Congress of the CPSU, and the leading comrades of the 
CPSU are well aware of this. Yet the Open Letter of the 
Central Committee of the CPSU asserts that the Communist 
Party of China previously gave the 20th Congress full support, 
that we "have made a 180-degree turn" in our evaluation of 
the 20th Congress, and that our position is full of "vacillation 
and wavering" and is "false". 

63 



It is impossible for the leadership of the CPSU to shut out 
the heavens with one palm. Let the facts speak for them- 
selves. 

On many occasions in internal discussions after the 20th 
Congress of the CPSU, leading comrades of the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPC solemnly criticized the errors of the CPSU 
leadership. 

In April 1956, less than two months after the 20th Con- 
gress, in conversations both with Comrade Mikoyan, member 
of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and 
with the Soviet Ambassador to China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung 
expressed our views on the question of Stalin. He emphasized 
that Stalin's "merits outweighed his faults" and that it was 
necessary to "make a concrete analysis" and "an all-round 
evaluation" of Stalin. 

On October 23, 1956, on receiving the Soviet Ambassador 
to China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out, "Stalin de- 
serves to be criticized, but we do not agree with the method 
of criticism, and there are some other matters we do not 
agree with." 

On November 30, 1956, on receiving the Soviet Ambassador 
to China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung again pointed out that the 
basic policy and line during the period when Stalin was in 
power were correct and that methods that are used against 
enemies must not be used against one's comrades. 

Both Comrade Liu Shao-chi in his conversation with 
leaders of the CPSU in October 1956, and Comrade Chou En- 
lai in his conversations on October 1, 1956 with the delegation 
of the CPSU to the Eighth Congress of the CPC and on 
January 18, 1957 with leaders of the CPSU, also expressed 
our views on the question of Stalin, and both criticized the 
errors of the leaders of the CPSU as consisting chiefly of 
"total lack of an overall analysis" of Stalin, "lack of self- 
criticism" and "failure to consult with the fraternal Parties 
in advance". 

64 



In internal discussions with comrades of the CPSU, leading 
comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC also stated 
where eve differed on the question of peaceful transition. 
Furthermore, in November 1957 the Central Committee of 
the CPC presented the Central Committee of the CPSU with 
a written "Outline of Views on the Question of Peaceful 
Transition", comprehensively and clearly explaining the 
viewpoint of the CPC. 

In their many internal discussions with comrades of the 
CPSU, leading comrades of the Central Committee of the 
CPC also systematically set forth our views on the interna- 
tional situation and the strategy of the international com- 
munist movement, with direct reference to the errors of the 
20th Congress of the CPSU. 

These are plain facts. How can the leadership of the CPSU 
obliterate them by bare-faced lying? 

Attempting to conceal these important facts, the Central 
Committee of the CPSU in its Open Letter quotes out of con- 
text public statements by Comrades Mao Tse-tung, Liu Shao- 
chi and Teng Hsiao-ping to show that at one time the Chinese 
Communist Party completely affirmed the 20th Congress of 
the CPSU. This is futile. 

The fact is that at no time and in no place did the Chinese 
Communist Party completely affirm the 20th Congress of the 
CPSU, agree with the complete negation of Stalin or endorse 
the view of peaceful transition to socialism through the "par- 
liamentary road". 

Not long after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, on April 
5, 1956, we published "On the Historical Experience of the 
Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; then, on December 29, 1956, 
we published "More on the Historical Experience of the 
Dictatorship of the Proletariat". While refuting the anti- 
Communist slanders of the imperialists and reactionaries, 
these two articles made an all-round analysis of the life of 
Stalin, affirmed the universal significance of the road of the 
October Revolution, summed up the historical experience of 

65 



the dictatorship of the proletariat, and tactfully but unequiv- 
ocally criticized the erroneous propositions of the 20th Con- 
gress. Is this not a widely known fact? 

Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Chinese Com- 
munist Party has continued to display the portrait of Stalin 
along with those of the other great revolutionary leaders, 
Marx, Engels and Lenin. Is not this, too, a widely known 
fact? 

It needs to be said, of course, that for the sake of unity 
against the enemy and out of consideration for the difficult 
position the leaders of the CPSU were in, we refrained in 
those days from open criticism of the errors of the 20th Con- 
gress, because the imperialists and the reactionaries of all 
countries were exploiting these errors and carrying on fren- 
zied activities against the Soviet Union, against communism 
and against the people, and also because the leaders of the 
CPSU had not yet departed so far from Marxism-Leninism 
as they did later. We fervently hoped at the time that the 
leaders of the CPSU would put their errors right. Conse- 
quently, we always endeavoured to seek out positive aspects 
and on public occasions gave them whatever support was ap- 
propriate and necessary. 

Even so, by stressing positive lessons and principles in 
their public speeches, leading comrades of the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPC explained our position with regard to the 
20th Congress of the CPSU. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
asserts that in his political report to the Eighth Congress of 
the CPC, Comrade Liu Shao-chi completely affirmed the 20th 
Congress of the CPSU. But it was in this very report that 
Comrade Liu Shao-chi spoke on the lessons of the Chinese 
revolution and explained that the road of "peaceful transi- 
tion" was wrong and impracticable. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
asserts that in his report to the Eighth Congress of the CPC 
on the revision of the Party Constitution, Comrade Teng 

66 



Hsiao-ping completely affirmed the "struggle against the per- 
sonality cult" conducted at the 20th Congress. But it was in 
this very report that Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping discussed at 
some length democratic centralism in the Party and the in- 
terrelationship between leaders and masses, explained the 
consistent and correct style of work of our Party, and thus in 
effect criticized the error of the 20th Congress concerning 
the "struggle against the personality cult". 

Is there anything wrong in the way we acted? Have we not 
done exactly what a Marxist-Leninist Party ought to do by 
persevering in principle and upholding unity? 

How can this consistently correct attitude of the Chinese 
Communist Party towards the 20th Congress be described as 
full of "vacillation and wavering", as "false" and as represent- 
ing "a 180-degree turn"? 

In making these charges against us in the Open Letter, 
perhaps the Central Committee of the CPSU thought it could 
deny the criticisms we made because they were known only 
to a few leaders of the CPSU, and that it could use falsehoods 
to deceive the broad masses of the CPSU membership and 
the Soviet people. But does this not prove its own falseness? 



THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE 
20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
loudly proclaims the "splendid" and "majestic results" of the 
20th Congress of the CPSU. 

But history cannot be altered. People not suffering from 
too short a memory will recall that by its errors the 20th 
Congress produced not "splendid" or "majestic results" but 
a discrediting of the Soviet Union, of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat and of socialism and communism, and gave an 
opportunity to the imperialists, the reactionaries and all the 

67 



other enemies of communism, with extremely serious conse- 
quences for the international communist movement. 

After the Congress, swollen with arrogance the imperialists 
and reactionaries everywhere stirred up a world-wide tidal 
wave against the Soviet Union, against communism and 
against the people. The U.S. imperialists saw the all-out 
attack on Stalin by the leadership of the CPSU as something 
that was "never so suited to our purposes", 1 they talked open- 
ly about using Khrushchov's secret report as a "weapon with 
which to destroy the prestige and influence of the Communist 
movement" 2 and they took the opportunity to advocate 
"peaceful transformation" in the Soviet Union. 3 

The Titoites became most aggressive. Flaunting their 
reactionary slogan of "anti-Stalinism", they wildly attacked 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system. 
They declared that the 20th Congress of the CPSU "created 
sufficient elements" for the "new course" which Yugoslavia 
had started and that "the question now is whether this course 
will win or the course of Stalinism will win again". 4 

The Trotskyites, enemies of communism, who had been in 
desperate straits, feverishly resumed activity. In its Manifesto 
to the Workers and Peoples of the Entire World the so-called 
Fourth International said: 

Today, when the Kremlin leaders are themselves admit- 
ting the crimes of Stalin, they implicitly recognize that the 
indefatigable struggle carried on ... by the world Trot- 
skyist movement against the degeneration of the workers' 
state, was fully justified. 

The errors of the 20th Congress brought great ideological 
confusion in the international communist movement and 



1 Radio talk by T. C. Streibert, Director of the U.S. Information 
Agency, June 11, 1956. 

2 "The Communist Crisis", New York Times editorial, June 23, 1956. 

3 J. F. Dulles, Statement at the Press Conference, April 3, 1956. 

4 J. B. Tito, Speech Made in Pula, November 11, 1956. 

68 



caused it to be deluged with revisionist ideas. Along with the 
imperialists, the reactionaries and the Tito clique, renegades 
from communism in many countries attacked Marxism- 
Leninism and the international communist movement. 

Most striking among the events which took place during 
this period were the incident in Soviet-Polish relations and 
the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary. The two 
events were different in character. But the leadership of the 
CPSU made grave errors in both. By moving up troops in 
an attempt to subdue the Polish comrades by armed force 
it committed the error of great-power chauvinism. And at 
the critical moment when the Hungarian counter-revolu- 
tionaries had occupied Budapest, for a time it intended to 
adopt a policy of capitulation and abandon socialist Hungary 
to counter-revolution. 

These errors of the leadership of the CPSU inflated the 
arrogance of all the enemies of communism, created serious 
difficulties for many fraternal Parties and caused the inter- 
national communist movement great damage. 

In the face of this situation, the Chinese Communist Party 
and other fraternal Parties persevering in Marxism-Leninism 
firmly demanded repulsing the assaults of imperialism and 
reaction and safeguarding the socialist camp and the inter- 
national communist movement. We insisted on the taking of 
all necessary measures to smash the counter-revolutionary 
rebellion in Hungary and firmly opposed the abandonment 
of socialist Hungary. We insisted that in the handling of 
problems between fraternal Parties and countries correct 
principles should be followed so as to strengthen the unity of 
the socialist camp, and we firmly opposed the erroneous 
methods of great-power chauvinism. At the same time, we 
made very great efforts to safeguard the prestige of the CPSU. 

At that time the leaders of the CPSU accepted our sugges- 
tion and on October 30, 1956 issued the Soviet Government's 
Declaration on the Foundations of the Development and 
Further Strengthening of Friendship and Co-operation Be- 

69 



tween the Soviet Union and Other Socialist Countries", in 
which they examined some of their own past mistakes in 
handling their relations with fraternal countries. On Novem- 
ber 1, the Chinese Government issued a statement expressing 
support for the Soviet Government's declaration. 

All this we did in the interests of the international com- 
munist movement, and also in order to persuade the leaders 
of the CPSU to draw the proper lessons and correct their 
errors in good time and not slide farther away from Marxism- 
Leninism. But subsequent events showed that the leaders 
of the CPSU nursed rancour against us and regarded the CPC 
which perseveres in proletarian internationalism as the big- 
gest obstacle to their wrong line. 



THE 1957 MOSCOW MEETING OF 
FRATERNAL PARTIES 

The 1957 Meeting of Representatives of the Communist 
and Workers' Parties took place in Moscow after the repulse 
of the heavy attacks of the imperialists and the reactionaries 
of various countries on the international communist move- 
ment. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
says that the 20th Congress of the CPSU played an "immense 
part" in defining the general line of the international com- 
munist movement. The facts show the very reverse. The 
erroneous views of the 20th Congress on many important 
questions of principle were rejected and corrected by the 1957 
meeting of fraternal Parties. 

The well-known Declaration of 1957, adopted by the 
Moscow Meeting, summed up the experience of the interna- 
tional communist movement, set forth the common fighting 
tasks of all the Communist Parties, affirmed the universal 
significance of the road of the October Revolution, outlined 
the common laws governing socialist revolution and socialist 

70 



construction and laid down the principles guiding relations 
among fraternal Parties and countries. The common line of 
the international communist movement which was thus 
worked out at the meeting embodies the revolutionary prin- 
ciples of Marxism-Leninism and is opposed to the erroneous 
views deviating from Marxism-Leninism which were advanced 
by the 20th Congress. The principles guiding relations among 
fraternal Parties and countries laid down in the Declaration 
are concrete expressions of the principle of proletarian inter- 
nationalism and stand opposed to the great-power chauvinism 
and sectarianism of the leadership of the CPSU. 

The delegation of the CPC, which was headed by Comrade 
Mao Tse-tung, did a great deal of work during the meeting. 
On the one hand, it had full consultations with the leaders 
of the CPSU, and where necessary and appropriate waged 
struggle against them, in order to help them correct their 
errors; on the other hand, it held repeated exchanges of views 
with the leaders of other fraternal Parties in order that a 
common document acceptable to all might be worked out. 

At this meeting, the chief subject of controversy between 
us and the delegation of the CPSU was the transition from 
capitalism to socialism. In their original draft of the Decla- 
ration the leadership of the CPSU insisted on the inclusion 
of the erroneous views of the 20th Congress on peaceful 
transition. The original draft said not a word about non- 
peaceful transition, mentioning only peaceful transition; 
moreover, it described peaceful transition as "securing a 
majority in parliament and transforming parliament from an 
instrument of the bourgeois dictatorship into an instrument 
of a genuine people's state power". In fact, it substituted 
the "parliamentary road" advocated by the opportunists of 
the Second International for the road of the October Revolu- 
tion and tampered with the basic Marxist-Leninist theory on 
the state and revolution. 

The Chinese Communist Party resolutely opposed the 
wrong views contained in the draft declaration submitted by 

71 



the leadership of the CPSU. We expressed our views on the 
two successive drafts put forward by the Central Committee 
of the CPSU and made a considerable number of major 
changes of principle which we presented as our own revised 
draft. Repeated discussions were then held between the del- 
egations of the Chinese and Soviet Parties on the basis of 
our revised draft before the Joint Draft Declaration by the 
CPSU and the CPC was submitted to the delegations of the 
other fraternal Parties for their opinions. 

As a result of the common efforts of the delegations of the 
CPC and the other fraternal Parties, the meeting finally 
adopted the present version of the Declaration, which con- 
tains two major changes on the question of the transition from 
capitalism to socialism compared with the first draft put 
forward by the leadership of the CPSU. First, while indicat- 
ing the possibility of peaceful transition, the Declaration also 
points to the road of non-peaceful transition and stresses that 
"Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling 
classes never relinquish power voluntarily". Secondly, while 
speaking of securing "a firm majority in parliament", the 
Declaration emphasizes the need to "launch an extra-parlia- 
mentary mass struggle, smash the resistance of the reactionary 
forces and create the necessary conditions for peaceful reali- 
zation of the socialist revolution". 

Despite these changes, the formulation in the Declaration 
on the question of the transition from capitalism to socialism 
was still unsatisfactory. We finally conceded the point only 
out of consideration for the repeatedly expressed wish of the 
leaders of the CPSU that the formulation should show some 
connection with that of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. 

However, we presented the Central Committee of the 
CPSU with an outline of our views on the question of peace- 
ful transition in which the views of the CPC were explained 
comprehensively and clearly. The outline emphasizes the 
following: 

72 



"In the present situation of the international communist 
movement, it is advantageous from the point of view of 
tactics to refer to the desire for peaceful transition. But 
it would be inappropriate to over-emphasize the possibility 
of peaceful transition." 

"They [the proletariat and the Communist Party] must 
be prepared at all times to repulse counter-revolutionary 
attacks and, at the critical juncture of the revolution when 
the working class is seizing state power, to overthrow the 
bourgeoisie by armed force if it uses armed force to sup- 
press the peoples revolution (generally speaking, it is 
inevitable that the bourgeoisie will do so)." 

"To obtain a majority in parliament is not the same as 
smashing the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces) 
and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the armed 
forces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery 
of the bourgeoisie is smashed, a parliamentary majority 
for the proletariat and its reliable allies will either be 
impossible ... or undependable. . . ." (See Appendix I.) 

As a result of the common efforts of the delegations of the 
CPC and the other fraternal Parties, the 1957 Declaration 
also corrected the erroneous views which the CPSU leader- 
ship had put forward at the 20th Congress on such questions 
as imperialism and war and peace, and it added many im- 
portant points on a number of questions of principle. The 
main additions were the thesis that U.S. imperialism is the 
centre of world reaction and the sworn enemy of the people, 
the thesis that if imperialism should unleash a world war it 
would doom itself to destruction, the common laws governing 
the socialist revolution and the building of socialism; the 
principle of combining the universal truth of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism with the concrete practice of revolution and construc- 
tion in different countries, the formulation on the importance 
of applying dialectical materialism in practical work, the 

73 



thesis that the seizure of political power by the working class 
is the beginning of the revolution and not its end; the thesis 
that it will take a fairly long time to solve the question of 
who will win — capitalism or socialism, the thesis that the 
existence of bourgeois influence is an internal source of revi- 
sionism, while surrender to imperialist pressure is its external 
source; and so on. 

At the same time, the delegation of the CPC made some 
necessary compromises. In addition to the formulation on 
the question of peaceful transition, we did not agree with the 
reference to the 20th Congress of the CPSU and suggested 
changes. But out of consideration for the difficult position 
of the leadership of the CPSU at the time, we did not insist 
on the changes. 

Who could have imagined that these concessions which we 
made out of consideration for the larger interest would later 
be used by the leadership of the CPSU as an excuse for 
aggravating differences and creating a split in the interna- 
tional communist movement? 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
constantly equates the resolution of the 20th Congress of the 
CPSU with the Declaration of 1957 in its attempt to substitute 
the wrong line of the 20th Congress for the common line of 
the international communist movement. We pointed out long 
ago and now deem it necessary to reiterate, that in accord- 
ance with the principle that all fraternal Parties are indepen- 
dent and equal, no one is entitled to demand of fraternal 
Parties that they accept the resolutions of the Congress of 
one Party or for that matter anything else; and the resolutions 
of a Party Congress, whatever the Party, cannot be regarded 
as the common line of the international communist movement 
and have no binding force on other fraternal Parties. Only 
Marxism-Leninism and the documents unanimously agreed 
upon constitute the common code binding us and all fraternal 
Parties. 

74 



THE GROWTH OF THE REVISIONISM 
OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP 

After the Moscow Meeting of 1957 with its unanimously 
agreed Declaration, we hoped that the leadership of the 
CPSU would follow the line laid down in the Declaration and 
correct its errors. We regret to say that contrary to the ex- 
pectations we and all other Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties 
entertained, the leadership of the CPSU perpetrated increas- 
ingly serious violations of the revolutionary principles of the 
Declaration and the principles guiding relations among frater- 
nal Parties and countries, and departed farther and farther 
from the path of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian interna- 
tionalism. The revisionism of the leadership of the CPSU grew. 
This development aggravated the differences in the interna- 
tional communist movement and carried them to a new stage. 

In complete disregard of the common conclusion of the 1957 
Declaration that U.S. imperialism is the enemy of all the 
people of the world, the leadership of the CPSU passionately 
sought collaboration with U.S. imperialism and the settle- 
ment of world problems by the heads of the Soviet Union 
and the United States. Particularly around the time of the 
Camp David Talks in September 1959, Khrushchov lauded 
Eisenhower to the skies, hailing him as a man who "enjoys 
the absolute confidence of his people" 1 and who "also worries 
about ensuring peace just as we do". 2 Moreover, comrades of 
the CPSU energetically advertised the so-called "spirit of 
Camp David", whose existence Eisenhower himself denied, 
alleging that it marked "a new era in international rela- 
tions" 3 and "a turning-point in history". 4 

1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Mass Meeting in Moscow, Septem- 
ber 28, 1959. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Press Conference in Washington, September 27, 
1959. 

3 A. A. Gromyko Speech at the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the 
USSR, October 31, 1959. 

4 New Year message of greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and K. Y. 
Voroshilov to D. D. Eisenhower, January 1, 1960. 

75 



Completely disregarding the revolutionary line of the 1957 
Declaration, in statements by Khrushchov and in the Soviet 
press the leaders of the CPSU vigorously advocated their 
revisionist line of "peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competi- 
tion" and "peaceful transition", praised the "wisdom" and 
"goodwill" of the imperialists, preached that "a world with- 
out weapons, without armed forces and without wars" could 
be brought into being while the greater part of the globe was 
still ruled and controlled by imperialism, 1 that universal and 
complete disarmament could "open up literally a new epoch 
in the economic development of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America", 2 etc., etc. 

The CPSU published many books and articles in which it 
tampered with the fundamental theories of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism, emasculated their revolutionary spirit and propagated 
its revisionist views on a whole series of important problems 
of principle in the fields of philosophy, political economy, 
socialist and communist theory, history, literature and art. 

The leadership of the CPSU actively endeavoured to impose 
its erroneous views on the international democratic organiza- 
tions and to change their correct lines. An outstanding case 
in point was the behaviour of the Soviet comrades at the 
Peking session of the General Council Of the World Federa- 
tion of Trade Unions in June 1960. 

Completely disregarding the principles guiding relations 
among fraternal Parties and countries which were laid down 
in the 1957 Declaration, the leaders of the CPSU, eager to 
curry favour with U.S. imperialism, engaged in unbridled 
activities against China. They regarded the Chinese Com- 
munist Party, which adheres to Marxism-Leninism, as an 
obstacle to their revisionist line. They thought they had 
solved their internal problems and had "stabilized" their own 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Replies to Questions by Roberto J. Noble, Director 
of the Argentine paper Clarin, December 30, 1959. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, Septem- 
ber 18, 1959. 

76 



position and could therefore step up their policy of "being 
friendly to enemies and tough with friends". 

In 1958 the leadership of the CPSU put forward unreason- 
able demands designed to bring China under Soviet military 
control. These unreasonable demands were rightly and firmly 
rejected by the Chinese Government. Not long afterwards, 
in June 1959, the Soviet Government unilaterally tore up the 
agreement on new technology for national defense concluded 
between China and the Soviet Union in October 1957, and re- 
fused to provide China with a sample of an atomic bomb and 
technical data concerning its manufacture. 

Then, on the eve of Khrushchov's visit to the United States, 
ignoring China's repeated objections the leadership of the 
CPSU rushed out the TASS statement of September 9 on the 
Sino-Indian border incident, siding with the Indian reac- 
tionaries. In this way, the leadership of the CPSU brought 
the differences between China and the Soviet Union right into 
the open before the whole world. 

The tearing up of the agreement on new technology for 
national defence by the leadership of the CPSU and its is- 
suance of the statement on the Sino-Indian border clash on 
the eve of Khrushchov's visit to the United States were pres- 
entation gifts to Eisenhower so as to curry favour with the 
U.S. imperialists and create the so-called "spirit of Camp 
David". 

The leaders of the CPSU and Soviet publications also lev- 
elled many virulent attacks on the domestic and foreign pol- 
icies of the Chinese Communist Party. These attacks were 
almost invariably led by Khrushchov himself. He insinuated 
that China's socialist construction was "skipping over a stage" 
and was "equalitarian communism" 1 and that China's People's 
Communes were "in essence reactionary". 2 By innuendo he 



'N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 21st Congress of the CPSU, 
January 1959. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Conversation with the U.S. Senator H. H. Hum- 
phrey, December 1, 1958. 

77 



maligned China as warlike, guilty of "adventurism", 1 and so 
on and so forth. Back from the Camp David Talks, he went 
so far as to try to sell China the U.S. plot of "two Chinas" 
and, at the state banquet celebrating the tenth anniversary of 
the founding of the People's Republic of China, he read China 
a lecture against "testing by force the stability of the capitalist 
system". 

The line of revisionism and splittism pursued by the leader- 
ship of the CPSU created serious confusion in the ranks of 
the international communist movement. It seemed as though 
U.S. imperialism had ceased to be the sworn enemy of the 
people of the world. Eisenhower was welcomed by certain 
Communists as a "peace envoy". Marxism-Leninism and the 
Declaration of 1957 seemed to be outmoded. 

In the circumstances, in order to defend Marxism-Leninism 
and the 1957 Declaration and clear up the ideological confu- 
sion in the international communist movement, the Commu- 
nist Party of China published "Long Live Leninism!" and two 
other articles in April 1960. Keeping to our consistent stand 
of persevering in principle and upholding unity, we concen- 
trated on explaining the revolutionary theses of the 1957 Dec- 
laration and the fundamental Marxist-Leninist theories on 
imperialism, war and peace, proletarian revolution and the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. The views in these three arti- 
cles were totally different from the series of erroneous views 
that were being propagated by the leaders of the CPSU. How- 
ever, for the sake of the larger interest, we refrained from 
publicly criticizing the comrades of the CPSU and directed 
the spearhead of struggle against the imperialists and the 
Yugoslav revisionists. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
spends much energy distorting and attacking "Long Live 
Leninism!" and the two other articles, but is unable to sup- 
port its attacks with any convincing arguments. We should 

1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, October 1959. 

78 



like to put this question: In those circumstances, should we 
have kept silent on the wrong views and absurd arguments 
which had become current? Did we not have the right, and 
indeed the duty, to come forward in defense of Marxism- 
Leninism and the Declaration of 1957? 



THE SURPRISE ASSAULT ON THE CPC BY 
THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU 

A week after the publication of "Long Live Leninism!" and 
our two other articles, an American U-2 plane intruded into 
Soviet air space and the United States aborted the four-power 
summit conference. The "spirit of Camp David" completely 
vanished. Thus events entirely confirmed our views. 

In face of the arch enemy, it was imperative for the Com- 
munist Parties of China and the Soviet Union and the frater- 
nal Parties of the whole world to eliminate their differences, 
strengthen their unity and wage a common struggle against 
the enemy. But that was not what happened. In the summer 
of 1960 there was a widening of the differences in the interna- 
tional communist movement, a large-scale campaign was 
launched against the Chinese Communist Party, and the 
leadership of the CPSU extended the ideological differences 
between the Chinese and Soviet Parties to the sphere of state 
relations. 

In early June 1960 the Central Committee of the CPSU 
made the proposal that the Third Congress of the Rumanian 
Workers' Party to be held in Bucharest later in June, should 
be taken as an opportunity for representatives of the Com- 
munist and Workers' Parties of all the socialist countries to 
meet and exchange views on the international situation 
following the miscarriage of the four-power summit con- 
ference caused by the United States. The Chinese Communist 
Party did not approve of this idea of a hasty meeting nor of 
the idea of a representative meeting of the Parties of the 

79 



socialist countries alone. We made the positive proposal that 
there should be a meeting of representatives of all the Com- 
munist and Workers' Parties of the world and maintained that 
adequate preparations were necessary to make that meeting 
a success. Our proposal was agreed to by the CPSU. The two 
Parties thereupon agreed that, in preparation for the inter- 
national meeting, the representatives of the fraternal Parties 
attending the Third Congress of the Rumanian Workers' Party 
could provisionally exchange views on the date and place for 
the meeting, but not take any decision. 

At Bucharest, to our amazement, the leaders of the CPSU 
went back on their word and unleashed a surprise assault on 
the Chinese Communist Party, turning the spearhead of strug- 
gle against us and not against U.S. imperialism. 

The Bucharest meeting of representatives of fraternal Par- 
ties took place from June 24 to June 26. It is a plain lie for 
the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to de- 
scribe that meeting as "comradely assistance" to the Chinese 
Communist Party. 

Indeed, on the eve of the meeting, the delegation of the 
CPSU headed by Khrushchov distributed among the represent- 
atives of some fraternal Parties, and read out to those of 
others, a Letter of Information dated June 21 from the Cen- 
tral Committee of the CPSU to the Central Committee of the 
CPC. This Letter of Information groundlessly slandered and 
attacked the CPC all along the line; it constituted a pro- 
gramme for the anti-China campaign which was launched by 
the leadership of the CPSU. 

In the meeting, Khrushchov took the lead in organizing a 
great converging onslaught on the Chinese Communist Party. 
In his speech, he wantonly vilified the Chinese Communist 
Party as "madmen", "wanting to unleash war", "picking up 
the banner of the imperialist monopoly capitalists", being 
"pure nationalist" on the Sino-Indian boundary question and 
employing "Trotskyite ways" against the CPSU. Some of the 
fraternal Party representatives who obeyed Khrushchov and 

80 



followed his lead also wantonly charged the CPC with 
being "dogmatic", "Left adventurist", "pseudo-revolutionary", 
"sectarian", "worse than Yugoslavia", and so on and so forth. 

The anti-China campaign launched by Khrushchov at this 
meeting was also a surprise to many fraternal Parties. The 
representatives of a number of Marxist-Leninist fraternal Par- 
ties took exception to the wrong action of the leadership of 
the CPSU. 

At this meeting, the delegation of the Albanian Party of La- 
bour refused to obey the baton of the leaders of the CPSU and 
firmly opposed their sectarian activities. Consequently the 
leaders of the CPSU regarded the Albanian Party of Labour 
as a thorn in their side. Whereupon they took increasingly 
drastic steps against the Albanian Party. 

Can this dastardly attack on the CPC launched by the 
leadership of the CPSU be called "comradely assistance"? Of 
course not. It was a pre-arranged anti-Chinese performance 
staged by the leadership of the CPSU; it was a serious and 
crude violation of the principles guiding relations among fra- 
ternal Parties as laid down in the 1957 Declaration; it was a 
large-scale attack on a Marxist-Leninist Party by the revi- 
sionists, represented by the leaders of the CPSU. 

In the circumstances, the Communist Party of China waged 
a tit-for-tat struggle against the leadership of the CPSU in 
defence of the positions of Marxism-Leninism and the prin- 
ciples guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down 
in the Declaration. For the sake of the larger interest, the 
CPC delegation in Bucharest signed the Communique on the 
meeting, and at the same time, on June 26, 1960 distributed a 
written statement upon the instructions of the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPC. In this statement, the CPC delegation 
pointed out that Khrushchov's behaviour at the Bucharest 
meeting created an extremely bad precedent in the interna- 
tional communist movement. It solemnly declared: 

81 



"There are differences between us and Comrade Khru- 
shchov on a series of fundamental principles of Marxism- 
Leninism." "The future of the international communist move- 
ment depends on the needs and the struggles of the people 
of all countries and on the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, 
and will never be decided by the baton of any individual." 
". . . our Party believes in and obeys the truth of Marxism- 
Leninism and Marxism-Leninism alone, and will never sub- 
mit to erroneous views which run counter to Marxism- 
Leninism." (See Appendix II.) 

The leaders of the CPSU did not reconcile themselves to 
their failure to subdue the Chinese Communist Party in 
Bucharest. Immediately after the Bucharest meeting, they 
brought more pressure to bear on China by taking a series of 
steps to extend the ideological differences between the Chinese 
and Soviet Parties to the sphere of state relations. 

In July the Soviet Government suddenly took a unilateral 
decision recalling all the Soviet experts in China within one 
month, thereby tearing up hundreds of agreements and con- 
tracts. The Soviet side unilaterally scrapped the agreement on 
the publication of the magazine Druzhba (Friendship) by China 
for Soviet readers and of Su Chung You Hao (Soviet-Chinese 
Friendship) by the Soviet Union for Chinese readers and 
their distribution on reciprocal terms; it took the unwarranted 
step of demanding the recall by the Chinese Government of a 
staff member of the Chinese Embassy in the Soviet Union; and 
it provoked troubles on the Sino-Soviet border. 

Apparently the leaders of the CPSU imagined that once 
they waved their baton, gathered a group of hatchet-men to 
make a converging assault, and applied immense political and 
economic pressures, they could force the Chinese Communist 
Party to abandon its Marxist-Leninist and proletarian inter- 
nationalist stand and submit to their revisionist and great- 
power chauvinist behests. But the tempered and long-tested 
Chinese Communist Party and Chinese people could neither 

82 



be vanquished nor subdued. Those who tried to subjugate us 
by engineering a converging assault and applying pressures 
completely miscalculated. 

We shall leave the details of the way the leadership of the 
CPSU sabotaged Sino-Soviet relations for other articles. Here 
we shall simply point out that on the subject of Sino-Soviet 
relations, the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the 
CPSU falsely charges China with extending the ideological dif- 
ferences to the sphere of state relations and with curtailing 
trade between the two countries, while deliberately concealing 
the fact that the Soviet Government withdrew all its experts 
from China and unilaterally tore up hundreds of agreements 
and contracts, and that it was these unilateral Soviet actions 
which made Sino-Soviet trade shrink. For the leadership of 
the CPSU to deceive its members and the Soviet people in such 
a bare-faced way is truly sad. 



THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES AT THE 
1960 MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES 

In the latter half of 1960, a sharp struggle developed in the 
international communist movement around the Meeting of 
Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties. It was 
a struggle between the line of Marxism-Leninism and the line 
of revisionism and between the policy of persevering in prin- 
ciple and upholding unity and the policy of abandoning prin- 
ciple and creating splits. 

It had become evident before the meeting that the leader- 
ship of the CPSU was stubbornly persisting in its wrong stand 
and was endeavouring to impose its wrong line on the inter- 
national communist movement. 

The Chinese Communist Party was keenly aware of the 
gravity of the differences. In the interests of the inter- 
national communist movement we made many efforts, hoping 

83 



that the leadership of the CPSU would not proceed too far 
down the wrong path. 

On September 10, 1960 the Central Committee of the CPC 
replied to the June 21 Letter of Information of the Central 
Committee of the CPSU. In its reply which set forth the 
facts and reasoned things out, the Central Committee of the 
CPC systematically explained its views on a series of impor- 
tant questions of principle concerning the world situation and 
the international communist movement, refuted the attacks 
of the leadership of the CPSU on us, criticized its wrong views 
and put forward to the Central Committee of the CPSU five 
positive proposals for settling the differences and attaining 
unity. {For the five proposals, see Appendix III.) 

The Central Committee of the CPC subsequently sent a 
delegation to Moscow in September for talks with the delega- 
tion of the CPSU. During these talks, the delegation of the 
CPC pointed out that, while prettifying U.S. imperialism, the 
leadership of the CPSU was actively opposing China and ex- 
tending the ideological differences between the two Parties to 
state relations, and was thus treating enemies as brothers and 
brothers as enemies. Again and again the delegation of the 
CPC urged the leaders of the CPSU to change their wrong 
stand, return to the principles guiding relations among 
fraternal Parties and countries, and strengthen the unity be- 
tween the Chinese and Soviet Parties and between the two 
countries in order to fight the common enemy. However, the 
leaders of the CPSU showed not the slightest intention of cor- 
recting their errors. 

Thus a sharp struggle became inevitable. This struggle first 
unfolded in the Drafting Committee, attended by the represent- 
atives of 26 fraternal Parties, which prepared the documents 
for the meeting of fraternal Parties, and later grew to un- 
precedented acuteness at the meeting of the representatives 
of 81 fraternal Parties. 

In the meetings of the Drafting Committee in Moscow 
during October, the leaders of the CPSU attempted to force 

84 



through their own draft statement, which contained a whole 
string of erroneous views. As a result of principled struggle 
by the delegations of the CPC and some other fraternal Par- 
ties, the Drafting Committee after heated debates made many 
important changes of principle in the draft statement put for- 
ward by the CPSU. The committee reached agreement on 
most of the draft. However, in their determination to con- 
tinue the debate, the leadership of the CPSU refused to arrive 
at agreement on several important points at issue in the draft 
and, moreover, on Khrushchov's return from New York, even 
scrapped the agreements which had already been reached on 
some questions. 

The meeting of the representatives of the 81 fraternal Par- 
ties was held in Moscow in November 1960. Ignoring the 
desire of the Chinese and many other delegations to eliminate 
the differences and strengthen unity, on the eve of the meet- 
ing the leadership of the CPSU distributed among the repre- 
sentatives of the fraternal Parties gathered in Moscow a letter 
of 127 pages, which attacked the Chinese Communist Party 
more savagely than ever, thus provoking still sharper con- 
troversy. 

Such was the most unnatural atmosphere in which the 
meeting of the representatives of the 81 fraternal Parties was 
held. By their base conduct, the leaders of the CPSU brought 
the meeting to the brink of rupture. But the meeting finally 
reached agreement and achieved positive results, because the 
delegations of the Chinese Communist Party and some other 
fraternal Parties kept to principle, persevered in struggle and 
upheld unity, and because the majority of the delegations of 
the fraternal Parties demanded unity and were against a split. 

In its Open Letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU 
declares that at this meeting the delegation of the CPC "signed 
the Statement only when the danger of its full isolation became 
clear". This is another lie. 

What was the actual state of affairs? 

85 



It is true that, both before and during the meeting, the 
leadership of the CPSU engineered converging assaults on 
the Chinese Communist Party by a number of representatives 
of fraternal Parties, and relying on a so-called majority en- 
deavoured to bring the delegations of the Chinese and other 
Marxist-Leninist Parties to their knees and compel them to 
accept its revisionist line and views. However, the attempts 
by the leaders of the CPSU to impose things on others met 
with failure, both in the Drafting Committee of the 26 fraternal 
Parties and in the meeting of the representatives of the 81 
fraternal Parties. 

The fact remains that many of the wrong theses they put 
forward in their draft statement were rejected. Here are 
some examples: 

The wrong thesis of the leadership of the CPSU that peace- 
ful coexistence and economic competition form the general 
line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries was rejected. 

Its wrong thesis that the emergence of a new stage in the 
general crisis of capitalism is the result of peaceful coexistence 
and peaceful competition was rejected. 

Its wrong thesis that there is a growing possibility of peace- 
ful transition was rejected. 

It's wrong thesis about opposing the policy of "going it 
alone" on the part of socialist countries, which in effect 
meant opposing the policy of their relying mainly on them- 
selves in construction, was rejected. 

Its wrong thesis concerning opposition to so-called "cliquish 
activities" and "factional activities" in the international com- 
munist movement was rejected. In effect this thesis meant 
demanding that fraternal Parties should obey its baton, 
liquidating the principles of independence and equality in 
relations among fraternal Parties, and replacing the principle 
of reaching unanimity through consultation by the practice 
of subduing the minority by the majority. 

Its wrong thesis of underestimating the serious danger of 
modern revisionism was rejected. 

86 



The fact remains that many correct views on important prin- 
ciples set forth by the delegations of the Chinese and other 
fraternal Parties were written into the Statement. The theses 
on the unaltered nature of imperialism; on U.S. imperialism 
as the enemy of the people of the whole world; on the forma- 
tion of the most extensive united front against U.S. imperial- 
ism; on the national liberation movement as an important force 
in preventing world war; on the thoroughgoing completion by 
the newly-independent countries of their national democratic 
revolutions; on support by the socialist countries and the in- 
ternational working-class movement for the national libera- 
tion struggle; on the need for the working class and the masses 
in the advanced capitalist countries under U.S. imperialist 
political, economic and military domination to direct their 
chief blows at U.S. imperialist domination and also at the 
monopoly capital and other reactionary forces at home which 
betray their national interests; on the principle of reaching 
unanimity through consultation among fraternal Parties; 
against the revisionist emasculation of the revolutionary spirit 
of Marxism-Leninism; on the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism 
by the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia; 
and so on — all these theses are in the Statement as a result of 
the acceptance of the views of the Chinese and some other 
delegations. 

It is, of course, necessary to add that after the leaders of 
the CPSU agreed to drop their erroneous propositions and 
accepted the correct propositions of other Parties, the delega- 
tions of the CPC and some other fraternal Parties also made 
certain concessions. For instance, we differed on the ques- 
tions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and of the forms of 
transition from capitalism to socialism, but out of considera- 
tion for the needs of the CPSU and certain other fraternal 
Parties we agreed to the inclusion of the same wording on 
these two questions as that used in the 1957 Declaration. But 
we made it plain at the time to the leaders of the CPSU that 
this would be the last time we accommodated ourselves to 

87 



such a formulation about the 20th Congress; we would never 
do so again. 

From all the above it can be seen that the struggle between 
the two lines in the international communist movement dom- 
inated the 1960 Moscow Meeting from beginning to end. 
The errors of the leadership of the CPSU as revealed at this 
meeting had developed further. From the draft statement 
of the leaders of the CPSU and their speeches during the 
meeting, it could be clearly seen that the main political con- 
tent of the wrong line they were attempting to impose on the 
fraternal Parties consisted of the erroneous theories of "peace- 
ful coexistence", "peaceful competition" and "peaceful transi- 
tion", while its organizational content consisted of erroneous 
sectarian and splitting policies. It was a revisionist line in 
fundamental conflict with Marxism-Leninism and proletarian 
internationalism. The delegations of the Chinese and other 
fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties resolutely opposed it and 
firmly upheld the line of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian 
internationalism. 

The outcome of the struggle at this meeting was that the 
revisionist line and views of the leadership of the CPSU were 
in the main repudiated and that the Marxist-Leninist line 
gained a great victory. The revolutionary principles embodied 
in the Statement adopted at the meeting are powerful weapons 
in the hands of all fraternal Parties in the struggles against 
imperialism and for world peace, national liberation, people's 
democracy and socialism; they are also powerful weapons in 
the hands of Marxist-Leninists throughout the world in com- 
bating modern revisionism. 

At the meeting the fraternal Parties which upheld Marxism- 
Leninism earnestly criticized the erroneous views of the 
leadership of the CPSU and compelled it to accept many of 
their correct views; in doing so they changed the previous 
highly abnormal situation, in which not even the slightest 
criticism of the errors of the leadership of the CPSU was 
tolerated and its word was final. This was an event of great 

88 



historical significance in the international communist move- 
ment. 

The Central Committee of the CPSU asserts in its Open 
Letter that the delegation of the CPC was "completely isolated" 
at the meeting. This is merely an impudent attempt on the 
part of the leadership of the CPSU to represent its defeat as 
a victory. 

The principles of mutual solidarity as well as independence 
and equality among fraternal Parties and of reaching unanimity 
through consultation were observed at the meeting and the 
mistaken attempt of the leaders of the CPSU to use a majority 
to overrule the minority and to impose their views on other 
fraternal Parties was frustrated. The meeting demonstrated 
once again that in resolving differences among fraternal Par- 
ties it is highly necessary for Marxist-Leninist Parties to stick 
to principle, persevere in struggle and uphold unity. 



THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP 
BECOMES SYSTEMATIZED 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
asserts that "in appending their signatures to the 1960 State- 
ment, the CPC leaders were only manoeuvring". Is that really 
a fact? No. On the contrary, it was the leaders of the CPSU 
and not we who were manoeuvring. 

The facts have shown that at the 1960 meeting of fraternal 
Parties the leaders of the CPSU agreed to delete or change 
the erroneous propositions in their draft statement against 
their will and they were insincere in their acceptance of the 
correct propositions of fraternal Parties. They did not care 
two hoots about the document which was jointly agreed upon 
by the fraternal Parties. The ink was scarcely dry on their 
signature to the 1960 Statement before they began wrecking 
it. On December 1 Khrushchov signed the Statement on 
behalf of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and twenty-four 



hours later, violating what the fraternal Parties had agreed 
on, the same Khrushchov brazenly described Yugoslavia as 
a socialist country at the banquet for the delegations of the 
fraternal Parties. 

After the meeting of the 81 fraternal Parties, the leaders 
of the CPSU became more and more blatant in wrecking the 
1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. On the one hand, 
they took as their friend U.S. imperialism which the State- 
ment declares to be the enemy of the people of the world, 
advocating "U.S. -Soviet co-operation" and expressing the 
desire to work together with Kennedy to "set about building 
durable bridges of confidence, mutual understanding and 
friendship". 1 On the other hand, they took some fraternal 
Parties and countries as their enemies and drastically worsened 
the Soviet Union's relations with Albania. 

The 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October 1961 marked 
a new low in the CPSU leadership's efforts to oppose Marxism- 
Leninism and split the socialist camp and the international 
communist movement. It marked the systematization of the 
revisionism which the leadership of the CPSU had developed 
step by step from the 20th Congress onward. 

The leadership of the CPSU unleashed a great public attack 
on the Albanian Party of Labour at the 22nd Congress. In 
his speech Khrushchov went so far as openly to call for the 
overthrow of the Albanian leadership under Comrades Enver 
Hoxha and Mehmet Shehu. Thus the leadership of the CPSU 
established the vicious precedent of a Party congress being 
used for public attacks on other fraternal Parties. 

Another great thing the leadership of the CPSU did at the 
Congress was the renewed concentrated onslaught on Stalin 
five years after the complete negation of him at the 20th Con- 
gress and eight years after his death. 



1 Message of greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev to 
J. F. Kennedy on the 185th Anniversary of the Independence of the 
United States, July 4, 1961. 

90 



In the final analysis, this was done in order that the leaders 
of the CPSU should be able to throw the Declaration and the 
Statement overboard, oppose Marxism-Leninism and pursue 
a systematically revisionist line. 

Their revisionism was expressed in concentrated form in 
the new Programme of the CPSU which that Congress adopted. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
says that the line of the 22nd Congress was "approved at the 
meetings of representatives of the Communist Parties and 
set out in the Declaration and Statement". Is it not very 
careless of the leaders of the CPSU to make such a statement? 
How can they describe what happened in 1961 as having been 
"approved" or "set out" at the meeting of the Communist 
and Workers' Parties in 1960, or as far back as that in 1957? 

But leaving aside such silly self-commendation for the 
moment, let us first see the kind of stuff the Programme 
adopted at the 22nd Congress is made of. 

Even a cursory study of the Programme and the report on 
it made by Khrushchov shows that it is an out-and-out revi- 
sionist programme which totally violates the fundamental 
theories of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary prin- 
ciples of the Declaration and the Statement. 

It runs counter to the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 State- 
ment on many important questions of principle. Many of 
the erroneous views of the leadership of the CPSU which were 
rejected at the 1960 meeting of fraternal Parties reappear. 
For instance, it describes peaceful coexistence as the general 
principle of foreign policy, one-sidedly stresses the possibility 
of peaceful transition and slanders the policy of a socialist 
country's relying mainly on its own efforts in construction 
as "going it alone". 

The Programme goes a step further in systematizing the 
wrong line pursued by the leadership of the CPSU since its 
20th Congress, the main content of which is "peaceful coexist- 
ence", "peaceful competition" and "peaceful transition". 

91 



The Programme crudely revises the essence of Marxism- 
Leninism, namely, the teachings on proletarian revolution, on 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and on the party of the 
proletariat, declaring that the dictatorship of the proletariat 
is no longer needed in the Soviet Union and that the nature 
of the CPSU as the vanguard of the proletariat has changed, 
and advancing fallacies of a "state of the whole people" and 
a "party of the entire people". 

It substitutes humanism for the Marxist-Leninist theory of 
class struggle and substitutes the bourgeois slogan of Liberty, 
Equality, Fraternity for the ideals of communism. 

It is a programme which opposes revolution on the part of 
the people still living under the imperialist and capitalist 
system, who comprise two-thirds of the world's population, 
and opposes the carrying of revolution through to completion 
on the part of the people already on the socialist road, who 
comprise one-third of the world's population. It is a revi- 
sionist programme for the preservation or restoration of cap- 
italism. 

The Communist Party of China resolutely opposed the errors 
of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. Comrade Chou En-lai, 
who headed the CPC delegation to the Congress, stated our 
Party's position in his speech there, and he also frankly 
criticized the errors of the leadership of the CPSU in sub- 
sequent conversations with Khrushchov and other leaders of 
the CPSU. 

In his conversation with the delegation of the CPC, 
Khrushchov flatly turned down our criticisms and advice and 
even expressed undisguised support for anti-Party elements 
in the Chinese Communist Party. He openly stated that after 
the 20th Congress of the CPSU, when the leaders of the CPSU 
were beginning to take a "road different from that of Stalin" 
(that is, the road of revisionism), they still needed the support 
of the fraternal Parties. He said, "The voice of the Chinese 
Communist Party was then of great significance to us", but 

92 



"things are different now", and "we are doing well" and "we 
shall go our own way". 

Khrushchov's remarks showed that the leaders of the CPSU 
had made up their minds to go all the way down the road of 
revisionism and splitting. Although the Chinese Communist 
Party has frequently given them comradely advice, they have 
simply ignored it and shown not the slightest intention of 
mending their ways. 



AN ADVERSE CURRENT THAT IS OPPOSED TO 

MARXISM-LENINISM AND IS SPLITTING 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST 

MOVEMENT 

In the Open Letter the leaders of the CPSU try hard to 
make people believe that after the 22nd Congress they "made 
fresh efforts" to improve relations between the Chinese and 
Soviet Parties and to strengthen unity among the fraternal 
Parties and countries. 

This is another lie. 

What are the facts? 

They show that since the 22nd Congress the leadership of 
the CPSU has become more unbridled in violating the prin- 
ciples guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries 
and in pursuing policies of great-power chauvinism, sectarian- 
ism and splittism in order to promote its own line of systematic 
revisionism, which is in complete violation of Marxism- 
Leninism. This has brought about a continuous deterioration 
in Sino-Soviet relations and grave damage to the unity of 
the fraternal Parties and countries. 

The following are the main facts about how the leaders of 
the CPSU have sabotaged Sino-Soviet unity and the unity of 
fraternal Parties and countries since the 22nd Congress: 

1. The leaders of the CPSU have tried hard to impose their 
erroneous line upon the international communist movement 

93 



and to replace the Declaration and the Statement with their 
own revisionist programme. They describe their erroneous 
line as the "whole set of Leninist policies of the international 
communist movement of recent years", 1 and they call their 
revisionist programme the "real Communist Manifesto of our 
time" 2 and the "common programme" of the "Communist and 
Workers' Parties and of the people of countries of the socialist 
community". 3 

Any fraternal Party which rejects the erroneous line and 
programme of the CPSU and perseveres in the fundamental 
theories of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles 
of the Declaration and the Statement is looked upon as an 
enemy by the leaders of the CPSU, who oppose, attack and 
injure it and try to subvert its leadership by every possible 
means. 

2. Disregarding all consequences, the leadership of the 
CPSU broke off diplomatic relations with socialist Albania, 
an unprecedented step in the history of relations between 
fraternal Parties and countries. 

3. The leadership of the CPSU has continued to exert pres- 
sure on China and to make outrageous attacks on the Chinese 
Communist Party. In its letter of February 22, 1962 to the 
Central Committee of the CPC, the Central Committee of the 
CPSU accused the CPC of taking a "special stand of their 
own" and pursuing a line at variance with the common course 
of the fraternal Parties, and even made a crime out of our 
support for the Marxist-Leninist Albanian Party of Labour. 
As pre-conditions for improving Sino-Soviet relations, the 
leaders of the CPSU attempted to compel the CPC to abandon 
its Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalist stand, 



1 J. Y. Andropov, "The 22nd Congress of the CPSU and the Develop- 
ment of the World Socialist System", Pravda, December 2, 1961. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Conference of the Agricultural 
Workers of the Uzbek and Other Republics, November 16, 1961. 

3 "Unity Multiplies Tenfold the Forces of Communism", Pravda 
editorial, August 25, 1961. 

94 



abandon its consistent line, which is in lull conformity with 
the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the State- 
ment, accept their erroneous line, and also accept as a. fait ac- 
compli their violation of the principles guiding relations among 
fraternal Parties and countries. In its Open Letter, the Cen- 
tral Committee of the CPSU boasted of its letters to the Cen- 
tral Committee of the CPC during this period, of Khrushchov's 
remarks about his desire for unity in October 1962 to our 
Ambassador to the Soviet Union and so on, but in fact these 
were all acts for realizing their base attempt. 

4. The Central Committee of the CPSU rejected the pro- 
posals made by the fraternal Parties of Indonesia, Viet Nam, 
New Zealand, etc., that a meeting of representatives of the 
fraternal Parties should be convened, as well as the five posi- 
tive proposals made by the Central Committee of the CPC in 
its letter of April 7, 1962 to the Central Committee of the 
CPSU for the preparation for the meeting of fraternal Parties. 
In its reply of May 31, 1962 to the Central Committee of the 
CPC, the Central Committee of the CPSU went so far as to 
make the demand that the Albanian comrades abandon their 
own stand as a precondition for improving Soviet-Albanian 
relations and also for convening a meeting of the fraternal 
Parties. 

5. In April and May 1962 the leaders of the CPSU used 
their organs and personnel in Sinkiang, China, to carry out 
large-scale subversive activities in the Hi region and enticed 
and coerced several tens of thousands of Chinese citizens into 
going to the Soviet Union. The Chinese Government lodged 
repeated protests and made repeated representations, but the 
Soviet Government refused to repatriate these Chinese citizens 
on the pretext of "the sense of Soviet legality" 1 and "human- 
itarianism". 2 To this day this incident remains unsettled. 

1 Memorandum presented to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Af- 
fairs by the Soviet Embassy in China on August 9, 1962. 

2 Memorandum presented to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Af- 
fairs by the Soviet Embassy in China on April 29, 1962. 

95 



This is indeed an astounding event, unheard of in the rela- 
tions between socialist countries. 

6. In August 1962 the Soviet Government formally notified 
China that the Soviet Union would conclude an agreement 
with the United States on the prevention of nuclear prolifera- 
tion. This was a joint Soviet-U.S. plot to monopolize nuclear 
weapons and an attempt to deprive China of the right to 
possess nuclear weapons to resist the U.S. nuclear threat. The 
Chinese Government lodged repeated protests against this. 

7. The leadership of the CPSU has become increasingly 
anxious to strike political bargains with U.S. imperialism and 
has been bent on forming a reactionary alliance with Kennedy, 
even at the expense of the interests of the socialist camp and 
the international communist movement. An outstanding 
example was the fact that, during the Caribbean crisis, the 
leadership of the CPSU committed the error of capitulationism 
by submitting to the nuclear blackmail of the U.S. imperialists 
and accepting the U.S. Government's demand for "inter- 
national inspection" in violation of Cuban sovereignty. 

8. The leadership of the CPSU has become increasingly 
anxious to collude with the Indian reactionaries and is bent 
on forming a reactionary alliance with Nehru against socialist 
China. The leadership of the CPSU and its press openly sided 
with Indian reaction, condemned China for its just stand on 
the Sino-Indian border conflict and defended the Nehru gov- 
ernment. Two-thirds of Soviet economic aid to India have 
been given since the Indian reactionaries provoked the Sino- 
Indian border conflict. Even after large-scale armed conflict 
on the Sino-Indian border began in the autumn of 1962, the 
leadership of the CPSU has continued to extend military aid 
to the Indian reactionaries. 

9. The leadership of the CPSU has become increasingly 
anxious to collude with the Tito clique of Yugoslavia and is 
bent on forming a reactionary alliance with the renegade Tito 
to oppose all Marxist-Leninist Parties. After the 22nd Con- 

96 



gress, it took a series of steps to reverse the verdict on the 
Tito clique and thus openly tore up the 1960 Statement. 

10. Since November 1962 the leadership of the CPSU 
has launched still fiercer attacks, on an international scale, 
against the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist- 
Leninist Parties and whipped up a new adverse current in 
order to split the socialist camp and the international com- 
munist movement. Khrushchov made one statement after 
another and the Soviet press carried hundreds of articles at- 
tacking the Chinese Communist Party on a whole set of issues. 
Directed by the leaders of the CPSU, the Congresses of the 
fraternal Parties of Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy 
and the Democratic Republic of Germany became stages for 
anti-China performances, and more than forty fraternal Par- 
ties published resolutions, statements or articles attacking the 
Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties. 

The facts cited above cannot possibly be denied by the 
leaders of the CPSU. These iron-clad facts prove that the 
"fresh efforts" they made after the 22nd Congress of the 
CPSU were aimed, not at improving Sino-Soviet relations and 
strengthening unity between the fraternal Parties and coun- 
tries, but on the contrary, at further ganging up with the U.S. 
imperialists, the Indian reactionaries and the renegade Tito 
clique in order to create a wider split in the socialist camp 
and the international communist movement. 

In these grave circumstances, the Chinese Communist Party 
had no alternative but to make open replies to the attacks of 
some fraternal Parties. Between December 15, 1962 and 
March 8, 1963 we published seven such replies. In these 
articles we continued to leave some leeway and did not criti- 
cize the leadership of the CPSU by name. 

Despite the serious deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations 
resulting from the errors of the leadership of the CPSU, the 
Chinese Communist Party agreed to send its delegation to 
Moscow for the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties, 
and, in order that there might be a systematic exchange of 

97 



views in the talks, put forward its proposal concerning the 
general line of the international communist movement in its 
letter of reply to the Central Committee of the CPSU dated 
June 14. 

As subsequent facts have shown, the leaders of the CPSU 
were not only insincere about eliminating differences and 
strengthening unity, but used the talks as a smokescreen for 
covering up their activities to further worsen Sino-Soviet 
relations. 

On the eve of the talks, the leaders of the CPSU publicly 
attacked the Chinese Communist Party by name, through state- 
ments and resolutions. At the same time, they unjustifiably 
expelled a number of Chinese Embassy personnel and research 
students from the Soviet Union. 

On July 14, that is, on the eve of the U.S. -British-Soviet 
talks, while the Sino-Soviet talks were still in progress, the 
leadership of the CPSU hastily published the Open Letter of 
the Central Committee of the CPSU to Party organizations 
and all Communists in the Soviet Union and launched 
unbridled attacks on the Chinese Communist Party. This was 
another precious presentation gift made by the leaders of the 
CPSU to the U.S. imperialists in order to curry favour with 
them. 

Immediately afterwards in Moscow, the leadership of the 
CPSU signed the treaty on the partial halting of nuclear tests 
with the United States and Britain in open betrayal of the 
interests of the Soviet people, the people in the socialist camp 
including the Chinese people, and the peace-loving people of 
the world; there was a flurry of contacts between the Soviet 
Union and India; Khrushchov went to Yugoslavia for a "vaca- 
tion"; the Soviet press launched a frenzied anti-Chinese cam- 
paign; and so on and so forth. This whole train of events 
strikingly demonstrates that, disregarding everything, the 
leadership of the CPSU is allying with the imperialists, the 
reactionaries of all countries and the renegade Tito clique in 
order to oppose fraternal socialist countries and fraternal 

98 



Marxist-Leninist Parties. All this completely exposes the 
revisionist and divisive line which the leadership of the CPSU 
is following. 

At present, the "anti-Chinese chorus" of the imperialists, the 
reactionaries of all countries and the revisionists is making a 
lot of noise. And the campaign led by Khrushchov to oppose 
Marxism-Leninism and split the socialist camp and the inter- 
national communist ranks is being carried on with growing 
intensity. 



WHAT HAVE THE FACTS OF THE PAST 
SEVEN YEARS DEMONSTRATED? 

In the foregoing we have reviewed at some length the 
origin and development of the differences. Our aim is to 
clarify the facts which were distorted in the Open Letter of 
the Central Committee of the CPSU and to help our Party 
members and our people and also the Marxist-Leninists and 
revolutionary people of the world to see the truth. 

The facts of the past seven years have amply proved that 
the differences between the Chinese and Soviet Parties and 
within the international communist movement have arisen 
solely because the leadership of the CPSU has departed from 
Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the 
1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement and pursued a revi- 
sionist and splitting line in the international communist move- 
ment. The process in which the leadership of the CPSU has 
gone farther and farther down the road of revisionism and 
splittism is the very process which has widened and aggravated 
the differences. 

The facts of the past seven years have amply proved that 
the present differences within the international communist 
movement are differences between the line of adhering to 
Marxism-Leninism and the line of clinging to revisionism, be- 
tween the revolutionary line and the non-revolutionary and 

99 



anti-revolutionary line, between the anti-imperialist line and 
the line of capitulation to imperialism. They are differences 
between proletarian internationalism and great-power chau- 
vinism, sectarianism and splittism. 

The facts of the past seven years have amply proved that 
the road taken by the leadership of the CPSU is the course 
of allying with imperialism against socialism, allying with the 
United States against China, allying with the reactionaries 
of all countries against the people of the world, and allying 
with the renegade Tito clique against fraternal Marxist- 
Leninist Parties. This erroneous line of the leadership of the 
CPSU has led to a revisionist flood on an international scale, 
brought the international communist movement face to face 
with the danger of a split of unprecedented gravity, and 
brought serious damage to the peoples' cause of world peace, 
national liberation, people's democracy and socialism. 

The facts of the past seven years have also amply proved 
that the Communist Party of China has constantly striven 
to prevent the situation from deteriorating and to uphold 
principle, eliminate differences, strengthen unity and wage a 
common struggle against the enemy. We have exercised 
great restraint and done our very best. 

The Communist Party of China has always stressed the 
importance of the unity of the Chinese and Soviet Parties and 
the two countries. It has always held in respect the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union created by the great Lenin. 
We have always cherished deep proletarian affection for the 
great CPSU and the great Soviet people. We have rejoiced 
over every achievement of the CPSU and the Soviet people, 
and we have been saddened by every error of the leadership 
of the CPSU that has harmed the socialist camp and the in- 
ternational communist movement. 

It is not just today that the Chinese Communists have begun 
to discover the errors of the CPSU leadership. Ever since the 
20th Congress of the CPSU, we have watched with concern 
as the CPSU leadership took the road of revisionism. 

too 



Confronted with this grave situation, our Party has scores 
of times and for a long period considered: what should we do? 

We asked ourselves, should we follow the CPSU leadership 
and suit all our actions to its wishes? In that case, the leader- 
ship of the CPSU would of course rejoice, but would not we 
ourselves then turn into revisionists? 

We also asked ourselves, should we keep silent about the 
errors of the CPSU leadership? We believed that the errors 
of the CPSU leadership were not just accidental, individual 
and minor errors, but rather a whole series of errors of prin- 
ciple, which endanger the interests of the entire socialist 
camp and international communist movement. As a member 
in the ranks of the international communist movement, how 
could we be indifferent and keep silent about these errors? 
If we should do that, would not we be abandoning our duty to 
defend Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism? 

We foresaw that if we criticized the errors of the leaders of 
the CPSU, they would certainly strike at us vindictively and 
thus inevitably cause serious damage to China's socialist con- 
struction. But should Communists take a stand of national 
egoism and not dare to uphold truth for fear of vindictive 
blows? Should Communists barter away principles? 

We took into consideration the fact that the CPSU was 
built by Lenin, that it is the Party of the first socialist state, 
and that it enjoyed high prestige in the international com- 
munist movement and among the people of the whole world. 
Therefore, over a considerable period of time, we were partic- 
ularly careful and patient in criticizing the leaders of the 
CPSU, trying our best to confine such criticism to inter-Party 
talks between the leaders of the Chinese and Soviet Parties 
and to solve the differences through private discussions with- 
out resorting to public polemics. 

But all the comradely criticism and advice given to the 
leaders of the CPSU by responsible comrades of the Central 
Committee of the CPC in scores of inter-Party talks did not 
succeed in enabling them to return to the correct path. The 

101 



CPSU leaders went farther and farther down the road of 
revisionism and splittism. In return for the advice we gave 
in goodwill, they applied a succession of political, economic 
and military pressures against us and launched attacks which 
became increasingly violent. 

The CPSU leaders have a bad habit: they undiscriminat- 
ingly stick labels on anyone who criticizes them. 

They say, "You are anti-Soviet!" No, friends! The label 
"anti-Soviet" cannot be stuck on us. Our criticism of your 
errors is precisely for the sake of defending the great CPSU 
and the great Soviet Union and preventing the prestige of 
the CPSU and the Soviet Union from being badly damaged 
by you. To put it plainly, it is you, and not we, who are 
really anti-Soviet and who are defaming and discrediting the 
CPSU and the Soviet Union. Ever since the complete nega- 
tion of Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, you have 
committed innumerable foul deeds. Not all the water in the 
Volga can wash away the great shame you have brought 
upon the CPSU and upon the Soviet Union. 

They say, "You want to seize the leadership!" No, friends! 
It is not at all clever of you to make this slander. The 
way you put it, it would seem that some people are con- 
tending with you for some such thing as "the leadership". Is 
this not tantamount to shamelessly claiming that some sort 
of "leadership" exists in the international communist move- 
ment and that you have this "leadership"? It is a very, very 
bad habit of yours thus to put on the airs of a patriarchal 
party. It is entirely illegitimate. The 1957 Declaration 
and the 1960 Statement clearly state that all Communist Par- 
ties are independent and equal. According to this principle, 
the relations among fraternal Parties should under no circum- 
stances be like the relations between a leading Party and the 
led, and much less like the relations between a patriarchal 
father and his son. We have always opposed any one Party 
commanding other fraternal Parties, and it has never 
occurred to us that we ourselves should command other 

102 



fraternal Parties, and so the question of contending for 
leadership simply does not arise. What confronts the inter- 
national communist movement now is not whether this or that 
Party should assume leadership but whether to respond to 
the baton of revisionism or to uphold the revolutionary prin- 
ciples of the Declaration and the Statement and persevere 
in the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism. Our criticism 
of the leadership of the CPSU concerns its attempt to lord it 
over fraternal Parties and to impose its line of revisionism and 
splittism on them. What we desire is merely the independent 
and equal status of the fraternal Parties stipulated in the 
Declaration and the Statement and their unity on the basis 
of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

It is the leaders of the CPSU who have provoked and ex- 
tended the present great debate in the international commu- 
nist movement and forced it on us. Since they have levelled 
large-scale attacks and all kinds of unscrupulous slanders 
against us, and since they have openly betrayed Marxism- 
Leninism and proletarian internationalism and torn up the 
Declaration and the Statement, they cannot expect us to 
abstain from replying, from refuting their slanders, from safe- 
guarding the Declaration and the Statement and from defend- 
ing Marxism-Leninism. The debate is on, and right and 
wrong must be thoroughly clarified. 

We Chinese Communists persevere in principle and uphold 
unity; we did so in the past, we do so now and we shall con- 
tinue to do so in the future. While engaging in polemics 
with the leaders of the CPSU, we still hope they will realize 
that they have taken a most dangerous road by abandoning 
revolution, abandoning the revolutionary people of the world, 
abandoning the unity of the socialist camp and of the inter- 
national communist movement and eagerly collaborating with 
the U.S. imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries and 
the renegade Tito clique. 

The interests of the Chinese and Soviet peoples, of the 
socialist camp, of the international communist movement, and 

103 



of the people throughout the world demand that all Commu- 
nist and Workers' Parties should become united and oppose the 
common enemy. 

We hereby appeal once again to the leadership of the CPSU 
to correct its errors and return to the path of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism and proletarian internationalism, the path of the 1957 
Declaration and the 1960 Statement. 

The international communist movement is going through an 
important period. The present debate has a vital bearing on 
the future of the proletarian world revolution and the destiny 
of mankind. As history will prove, after this great debate 
Marxism-Leninism will shine forth more brilliantly and the 
revolutionary cause of the international proletariat and the 
people of the world will win still greater victories. 



APPENDIX I 

OUTLINE OF VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF 
PEACEFUL TRANSITION 

(November 10, 1957) 

1. On the question of the transition from capitalism to 
socialism, it would be more flexible to refer to the two pos- 
sibilities, peaceful transition and non-peaceful transition, than 
to just one, and this would place us in a position where we 
can have the initiative politically at any time. 

a. Referring to the possibility of peaceful transition in- 
dicates that for us the use of violence is primarily a matter 
of self-defence. It enables the Communist Parties in the 
capitalist countries to sidestep attacks on them on this issue, 
and it is politically advantageous — advantageous for win- 
ning the masses and also for depriving the bourgeoisie of 
its pretexts for such attacks and isolating it. 

b. If practical possibilities for peaceful transition were 
to arise in individual countries in the future when the in- 
ternational or domestic situation changes drastically, we 
could then make timely use of the opportunity to win the 
support of the masses and solve the problem of state power 
by peaceful means. 

c. Nevertheless, we should not tie our own hands be- 
cause of this desire. The bourgeoisie will not step down 
from the stage of history voluntarily. This is a universal 
law of class struggle. In no country should the proletariat 
and the Communist Party slacken their preparations for 
the revolution in any way. They must be prepared at all 
times to repulse counter-revolutionary attacks and, at the 
critical juncture of the revolution when the working class 

105 



is seizing state power, to overthrow the bourgeoisie by 
armed force if it uses armed force to suppress the people's 
revolution (generally speaking, it is inevitable that the 
bourgeoisie will do so). 

2. In the present situation of the international communist 
movement, it is advantageous from the point of view of tactics 
to refer to the desire for peaceful transition. But it would 
be inappropriate to over-emphasize the possibility of peace- 
ful transition. The reasons are: 

a. Possibility and reality, the desire and whether or 
not it can be fulfilled, are two different matters. We should 
refer to the desire for peaceful transition, but we should 
not place our hopes mainly on it and therefore should not 
over-emphasize this aspect. 

b. If too much stress is laid on the possibility of peace- 
ful transition, and especially on the possibility of seizing 
state power by winning a majority in parliament it is liable 
to weaken the revolutionary will of the proletariat, the 
working people and the Communist Party and disarm them 
ideologically. 

c. To the best of our knowledge, there is still not a 
single country where this possibility is of any practical 
significance. Even if it is slightly more apparent in a par- 
ticular country, over-emphasizing this possibility is inap- 
propriate because it does not conform with the realities in 
the overwhelming majority of countries. Should such a 
possibility actually occur in some country, the Communist 
Party there must on the one hand strive to realize it, and 
on the other hand always be prepared to repulse the armed 
attacks of the bourgeoisie. 

d. The result of emphasizing this possibility will neither 
weaken the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie nor lull 
them. 

e. Nor will such emphasis make the social democratic 
parties any more revolutionary. 

106 



f. Nor will such emphasis make Communist Parties 
grow any stronger. On the contrary, if some Communist 
Parties should as a result obscure their revolutionary fea- 
tures and thus become confused with the social democratic 
parties in the eyes of the people, they would only be 
weakened. 

g. It is very hard to accumulate strength and prepare 
for the revolution, and after all parliamentary struggle is 
easy in comparison. We must fully utilize the parliamentary 
form of struggle, but its role is limited. What is most im- 
portant is to proceed with the hard work of accumulating 
revolutionary strength. 

3. To obtain a majority in parliament is not the same 
as smashing the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces) 
and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the armed 
forces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery of 
the bourgeoisie is smashed, a parliamentary majority for the 
proletariat and its reliable allies will either be impossible 
(because the bourgeoisie will amend the constitution when- 
ever necessary in order to facilitate the consolidation of its 
dictatorship) or undependable (for instance, elections may be 
declared null and void, the Communist Party may be out- 
lawed, parliament may be dissolved, etc.). 

4. Peaceful transition to socialism should not be inter- 
preted in such a way as solely to mean transition through a 
parliamentary majority. The main question is that of the state 
machinery. In the 1870's, Marx was of the opinion that there 
was a possibility of achieving socialism in Britain by peaceful 
means, because "at that time England was a country in which 
militarism and bureaucracy were less pronounced than in 
any other". For a period after the February Revolution, 
Lenin hoped that through "all power to the Soviets" the rev- 
olution would develop peacefully and triumph, because at 
that time "the arms were in the hands of the people". Neither 
Marx nor Lenin meant that peaceful transition could be 

107 



realized by using the old state machinery. Lenin repeatedly 
elaborated on the famous saying of Marx and Engels, "The 
working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state 
machinery and wield it for its own purposes." 

5. The social democratic parties are not parties of social- 
ism. With the exception of certain Left wings, they are par- 
ties serving the bourgeoisie and capitalism. They are a variant 
of bourgeois political parties. On the question of socialist 
revolution, our position is fundamentally different from that 
of the social democratic parties. This distinction must not be 
obscured. To obscure this distinction only helps the leaders 
for the social democratic parties to deceive the masses and 
hinders us from winning the masses away from the influence 
of the social democratic parties. However, it is unquestion- 
ably very important to strengthen our work with respect to the 
social democratic parties and strive to establish a united front 
with their left and middle groups. 

6. Such is our understanding of this question. We do hold 
differing views on this question, but out of various considera- 
tions we did not state our views after the 20th Congress of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since a joint 
Declaration is to be issued, we must now explain our views. 
However, this need not prevent us from attaining common 
language in the draft Declaration. In order to show a connec- 
tion between the formulation of this question in the draft 
Declaration and the formulation of the 20th Congress of the 
CPSU, we agree to take the draft put forward today by the 
Central Committee of the CPSU as a basis, while proposing 
amendments in certain places. 



APPENDIX II 

STATEMENT OF THE DELEGATION OF THE 

COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA AT THE 

BUCHAREST MEETING OF 

FRATERNAL PARTIES 

(June 26, 1960) 

1. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of 
China maintains that at this meeting Comrade Khrushchov 
of the Delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union has completely violated the long- 
standing principle in the international communist movement 
that questions of common concern should be settled by con- 
sultation among fraternal Parties, and has completely broken 
the agreement made prior to the meeting to confine it to an 
exchange of views and not to make any decision; this he has 
done by his surprise attack of putting forward a draft com- 
munique of the meeting without having consulted the 
fraternal Parties on its contents beforehand and without per- 
mitting full and normal discussion in the meeting. This is an 
abuse of the prestige enjoyed by the CPSU in the interna- 
tional communist movement, a prestige which has been built 
up over the long years since Lenin's time, and it is, moreover, 
an extremely crude act of imposing one's own will on other 
people. This attitude has nothing in common with Lenin's 
style of work and this way of doing things creates an ex- 
tremely bad precedent in the international communist move- 
ment. The Central Committee of the CPC considers that this 
attitude and this way of doing things on the part of Comrade 
Khrushchov will have extraordinarily grave consequences for 
the international communist movement. 

109 



2. The Communist Party of China has always been faith- 
ful to Marxism-Leninism and has always steadfastly adhered 
to the theoretical positions of Marxism-Leninism. In the past 
two years and more, it has been completely faithful to the 
Moscow Declaration of 1957, and has firmly upheld all the 
Marxist-Leninist theses of the Declaration. There are differ- 
ences between us and Comrade Khrushchov on a series of 
fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. These differ- 
ences have a vital bearing on the interests of the entire so- 
cialist camp, on the interests of the proletariat and the work- 
ing people of the whole world, on the question of whether 
the people of all countries will be able to preserve world 
peace and prevent the imperialists from launching a world 
war, and on the question of whether socialism will continue 
to score victories in the capitalist world, which comprises 
two-thirds of the world's population and three-fourths of its 
land space. All Marxist-Leninists should adopt a serious at- 
titude towards these differences, give them serious thought 
and hold comradely discussions, so as to achieve unanimous 
conclusions. However, the attitude Comrade Khrushchov has 
adopted is patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical. He has in 
fact treated the relationship between the great Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union and our Party not as one between 
brothers, but as one between patriarchal father and son. At 
this meeting he has exerted pressure in an attempt to make 
our Party submit to his non-Marxist-Leninist views. We 
hereby solemnly declare that our Party believes in and obeys 
the truth of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism alone, 
and will never submit to erroneous views which run counter 
to Marxism-Leninism. We consider that certain views ex- 
pressed by Comrade Khrushchov in his speech at the Third 
Congress of the Rumanian Party are erroneous and in contra- 
vention of the Moscow Declaration. His speech will be 
welcomed by the imperialists and the Tito clique and has 
indeed already been welcomed by them. When the occasion 
arises, we shall be ready to carry on serious discussions with 

110 



the CPSU and other fraternal Parties on our differences with 
Comrade Khrushchov. As for the Letter of Information of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the Communist 
Party of China, which Comrade Khrushchov has distributed in 
Bucharest, the Central Committee of the CPC will reply to 
it in detail after carefully studying it; the reply will explain 
the differences of principle between the two Parties, setting 
forth the relevant facts, and the Central Committee of the 
CPC will hold serious, earnest and comradely discussions 
with fraternal Parties. We are convinced that in any case the 
truth of Marxism-Leninism will triumph in the end. Truth 
does not fear contention. Ultimately, it is impossible to por- 
tray truth as error or error as truth. The future of the in- 
ternational communist movement depends on the needs and 
the struggles of the people of all countries and on the 
guidance of Marxism-Leninism, and will never be decided 
by the baton of any individual. 

3. We, the Communist Party of China, have always striven 
to safeguard the unity of all Communist Parties and the unity 
of all socialist countries. For the sake of genuine unity in 
the international communist ranks and for the sake of the 
common struggle against imperialism and reaction, we hold 
that it is necessary to unfold normal discussions on the differ- 
ences and that serious questions of principle should not be 
settled in a hurry by abnormal methods or simply by vote. 
Nor should one impose on others arbitrary views which have 
not been tested in practice or which have already proved to 
be wrong in such tests. Comrade Khrushchov 's way of doing 
things at this meeting is entirely detrimental to the unity of 
international communism. But however Comrade Khru- 
shchov may act, the unity of the Chinese and Soviet Parties 
and the unity of all the Communist and Workers' Parties is 
bound to be further strengthened and developed. We are 
deeply convinced that, as the international communist move- 
ment and Marxism-Leninism develop, the unity of our ranks 
will constantly grow stronger. 

ill 



4. If the relations between our two Parties are viewed 
as a whole, the above-mentioned differences between Comrade 
Khrushchov and ourselves are only of a partial character. We 
hold that the main thing in the relations between our two 
Parties is their unity in the struggle for the common cause; 
this is so because both our countries are socialist countries 
and both our Parties are built on the principles of Marxism- 
Leninism, and are fighting to advance the cause of the whole 
socialist camp, to oppose imperialist aggression and to win 
world peace. We believe that Comrade Khrushchov and the 
Central Committee of the CPSU and we ourselves will be 
able to find opportunities to hold calm and comradely discus- 
sions and resolve our differences, so that the Chinese and 
Soviet Parties may become more united and their relations 
further strengthened. This will be highly beneficial to the 
socialist camp and to the struggle of the people of the world 
against imperialist aggression and for world peace. 

5. We are glad to see that the draft Communique of the 
Meeting put forward here affirms the correctness of the 
Moscow Declaration. But the presentation of the Marxist- 
Leninist theses of the Moscow Declaration in this draft is inac- 
curate and one-sided. And it is wrong that the draft avoids 
taking a clear stand on the major problems in the current 
international situation and makes no mention at all of modern 
revisionism, the main danger in the international working- 
class movement. Therefore, this draft is unacceptable to us. 
For the sake of unity in the common struggle against the 
enemy, we have submitted a revised draft and propose that 
it be discussed. If it is not possible to reach agreement this 
time, we propose that a special drafting committee be set up 
to work out, after full discussions, a document which is 
acceptable to all. 



APPENDIX III 

THE FIVE PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE 
DIFFERENCES AND ATTAINMENT OF UNITY CON- 
TAINED IN THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL 
COMMITTEE OF THE CPC IN REPLY 
TO THE LETTER OF INFORMATION 
OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE 
OF THE CPSU 

{September 10, 1960) 

Striving to settle the differences successfully and to attain 
unity, we put forward the following proposals in all sincerity: 

1. The fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism and 
the principles of the Declaration and the Manifesto of the 
1957 Moscow Meeting are the ideological foundation for the 
unity between our two Parties and among all fraternal Par- 
ties. All our statements and actions must be absolutely loyal 
to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and the 
principles of the Moscow Declaration, which we should use 
as the criteria forjudging between truth and falsehood. 

2. The relations among the socialist countries and among 
the fraternal Parties must strictly conform to the principles 
of equality, comradeship and internationalism as stipulated 
by the Moscow Declaration. 

3. All disputes among the socialist countries and among 
the fraternal Parties must be settled in accordance with the 
stipulations of the Moscow Declaration, through comradely 
and unhurried discussion. Both the Soviet Union and China, 
and both the Soviet and Chinese Parties, bear great respon- 
sibilities regarding the international situation and towards 
the international communist movement. They should have 

113 



full consultations and unhurried discussions on all important 
questions of common concern in order to have unity of action. 
If the disputes between the Chinese and Soviet Parties can- 
not be settled for the time being in consultations between the 
two Parties, then unhurried discussions should be continued. 
When necessary, the views of both sides should be presented 
completely objectively to the Communist and Workers' Par- 
ties of all countries so that these Parties may make correct 
judgments after serious deliberation and in accordance with 
Marxism-Leninism and the principles of the Moscow Dec- 
laration. 

4. It is of the utmost importance for Communists to draw 
a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves, 
between truth and falsehood. Our two Parties should 
treasure and value our friendship and join hands to oppose 
the enemy, and should not make statements or take actions 
liable to undermine the unity between the two Parties and 
the two countries and thus give the enemy the opportunity 
of driving a wedge between us. 

5. On the basis of the above principles, our two Parties, 
together with other Communist and Workers' Parties, should 
strive through full preparation and consultation to make a 
success of the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist 
and Workers' Parties of all countries to be held in Moscow 
in November this year, and, at this meeting, should work out 
a document conforming to the fundamental principles of 
Marxism-Leninism and the principles of the 1957 Moscow 
Declaration to serve as a programme to which we should all 
adhere, a programme for our united struggle against the 
enemy. 



ON THE QUESTION 
OF STALIN 

Second Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
{People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(September 13, 1963) 



THE question of Stalin is one of world-wide importance 
which has had repercussions among all classes in every 
country and which is still a subject of much discussion today, 
with different classes and their political parties and groups 
taking different views. It is likely that no final verdict can 
be reached on this question in the present century. But there 
is virtual agreement among the majority of the international 
working class and of revolutionary people, who disapprove of 
the complete negation of Stalin and more and more cherish 
his memory. This is also true of the Soviet Union. Our 
controversy with the leaders of the CPSU is with a section of 
people. We hope to persuade them in order to advance the 
revolutionary cause. This is our purpose in writing the pres- 
ent article. 

The Communist Party of China has always held that when 
Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin on the pretext 
of "combating the personality cult", he was quite wrong and 
had ulterior motives. 

The Central Committee of the CPC pointed out in its letter 
of June 14 that the "struggle against the personality cult" 
violates Lenin's integral teachings on the interrelationship of 
leaders, party, class and masses, and undermines the Com- 
munist principle of democratic centralism. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
avoids making any reply to our principled arguments, but 
merely labels the Chinese Communists as "defenders of the 
personality cult and peddlers of Stalin's erroneous ideas". 

When he was fighting the Mensheviks, Lenin said, "Not to 
reply to an argument of one's opponent on a question of prin- 
ciple, and to ascribe only 'pathos' to him, means not to argue 

117 



but to turn to abuse." 1 The attitude shown by the Central 
Committee of the CPSU in its Open Letter is exactly like that 
of the Mensheviks. 

Even though the Open Letter resorts to abuse in place of 
debate, we on our part prefer to reply to it with principled 
arguments and a great many facts. 

The great Soviet Union was the first state of the dictatorship 
of the proletariat. In the beginning, the foremost leader of 
the Party and the Government in this state was Lenin. After 
Lenin's death, it was Stalin. 

After Lenin's death, Stalin became not only the leader of 
the Party and Government of the Soviet Union but the 
acknowledged leader of the international communist movement 
as well. 

It is only forty-six years since the first socialist state was 
inaugurated by the October Revolution. For nearly thirty 
of these years Stalin was the foremost leader of this state. 
Whether in the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat 
or in that of the international communist movement, Stalin's 
activities occupy an extremely important place. 

The Chinese Communist Party has consistently maintained 
that the question of how to evaluate Stalin and what attitude 
to take towards him is not just one of appraising Stalin him- 
self; more important, it is a question of how to sum up the 
historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and- 
of the international communist movement since Lenin's death. 

Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin at the 20th 
Congress of the CPSU. He failed to consult the fraternal Par- 
ties in advance on this question of principle which involves 
the whole international communist movement, and afterwards 
tried to impose a fait accompli on them. Whoever makes an 
appraisal of Stalin different from that of the leadership of 
the CPSU is charged with "defence of the personality cult" 
as well as "interference" in the internal affairs of the CPSU. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Some Remarks on the 'Reply' by P. Maslov", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XV, p. 255. 

118 



But no one can deny the international significance of the 
historical experience of the first state of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat, or the historical fact that Stalin was the leader 
of the international communist movement; consequently, no 
one can deny that the appraisal of Stalin is an important ques- 
tion of principle involving the whole international communist 
movement. On what ground, then, do the leaders of the CPSU 
forbid other fraternal Parties to make a realistic analysis and 
appraisal of Stalin? 

The Communist Party of China has invariably insisted on 
an overall, objective and scientific analysis of Stalin's merits 
and demerits by the method of historical materialism and the 
presentation of history as it actually occurred, and has opposed 
the subjective, crude and complete negation of Stalin by the 
method of historical idealism and the wilful distortion and 
alteration of history. 

The Communist Party of China has consistently held that 
Stalin did commit errors, which had their ideological as well 
as social and historical roots. It is necessary to criticize the 
errors Stalin actually committed, not those groundlessly 
attributed to him, and to do so from a correct stand and with 
correct methods. But we have consistently opposed improper 
criticism of Stalin, made from a wrong stand and with wrong 
methods. 

Stalin fought tsarism and propagated Marxism during 
Lenin's lifetime; after he became a member of the Central 
Committee of the Bolshevik Party headed by Lenin he took 
part in the struggle to pave the way for the 1917 Revolution; 
after the October Revolution he fought to defend the fruits 
of the proletarian revolution. 

Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people, after Lenin's 
death, in resolutely fighting both internal and external foes, 
and in safeguarding and consolidating the first socialist state 
in the world. 

Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people in upholding the 
line of socialist industrialization and agricultural collectiviza- 

119 



tion and in achieving great successes in socialist transformation 
and socialist construction. 

Stalin led the CPSU, the Soviet people and the Soviet army 
in an arduous and bitter struggle to the great victory of the 
anti-fascist war. 

Stalin defended and developed Marxism-Leninism in the 
fight against various kinds of opportunism, against the enemies 
of Leninism, the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and 
other bourgeois agents. 

Stalin made an indelible contribution to the international 
communist movement in a number of theoretical writings 
which are immortal Marxist-Leninist works. 

Stalin led the Soviet Party and Government in pursuing a 
foreign policy which on the whole was in keeping with prole- 
tarian internationalism and in greatly assisting the revolu- 
tionary struggles of all peoples, including the Chinese people. 

Stalin stood in the forefront of the tide of history guiding 
the struggle, and was an irreconcilable enemy of the imperial- 
ists and all reactionaries. 

Stalin's activities were intimately bound up with the strug- 
gles of the great CPSU and the great Soviet people and in- 
separable from the revolutionary struggles of the people of 
the whole world. 

Stalin's life was that of a great Marxist-Leninist, a great 
proletarian revolutionary. 

It is true that while he performed meritorious deeds for the 
Soviet people and the international communist movement, 
Stalin, a great Marxist-Leninist and proletarian revolutionary, 
also made certain mistakes. Some were errors of principle and 
some were errors made in the course of practical work; some 
could have been avoided and some were scarcely avoidable 
at a time when the dictatorship of the proletariat had no prece- 
dent to go by. 

In his way of thinking, Stalin departed from dialectical 
materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism on 
certain questions and consequently he was sometimes divorced 

120 



from reality and from the masses. In struggles inside as well 
as outside the Party, on certain occasions and on certain ques- 
tions he confused two types of contradictions which are dif- 
ferent in nature, contradictions between ourselves and the 
enemy and contradictions among the people, and also confused 
the different methods needed in handling them. In the work 
led by Stalin of suppressing the counter-revolution, many 
counter-revolutionaries deserving punishment were duly pun- 
ished, but at the same time there were innocent people who 
were wrongly convicted; and in 1937 and 1938 there occurred 
the error of enlarging the scope of the suppression of counter- 
revolutionaries. In the matter of Party and government or- 
ganization, he did not fully apply proletarian democratic cen- 
tralism and, to some extent, violated it. In handling relations 
with fraternal Parties and countries, he made some mistakes. 
He also gave some bad counsel in the international communist 
movement. These mistakes caused some losses to the Soviet 
Union and the international communist movement. 

Stalin's merits and mistakes are matters of historical, objec- 
tive reality. A comparison of the two shows that his merits 
outweighed his faults. He was primarily correct, and his 
faults were secondary. In summing up Stalin's thinking and 
his work in their totality, surely every honest Communist with 
a respect for history will first observe what was primary in 
Stalin. Therefore, when Stalin's errors are being correctly 
appraised, criticized and overcome, it is necessary to safeguard 
what was primary in Stalin's life, to safeguard Marxism- 
Leninism which he defended and developed. 

It would be beneficial if the errors of Stalin, which were 
only secondary, are taken as historical lessons so that the 
Communists of the Soviet Union and other countries might 
take warning and avoid repeating those errors or commit 
fewer errors. Both positive and negative historical lessons are 
beneficial to all Communists, provided they are drawn correct- 
ly and conform with and do not distort historical facts. 

121 



Lenin pointed out more than once that Marxists were totally 
different from the revisionists of the Second International in 
their attitude towards people like Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg, 
who, for all their mistakes, were great proletarian revolu- 
tionaries. Marxists did not conceal these people's mistakes but 
through such examples learned "how to avoid them and live 
up to the more rigorous requirements of revolutionary Marx- 
ism". 1 By contrast, the revisionists "crowed" and "cackled" 
over the mistakes of Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg. Ridiculing 
the revisionists, Lenin quoted a Russian fable in this connec- 
tion. "Sometimes eagles may fly lower than hens, but hens 
can never rise to the height of eagles." 2 Bebel and Rosa 
Luxemburg were "great Communists" and, in spite of their 
mistakes, remained "eagles", while the revisionists were a 
flock of "hens" "in the backyard of the working class move- 
ment, among the dung heaps". 3 

The historical role of Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg is by no 
means comparable to that of Stalin. Stalin was the great 
leader of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the interna- 
tional communist movement over a whole historical era, and 
greater care should be exercised in evaluating him. 

The leaders of the CPSU have accused the Chinese Com- 
munist Party of "defending" Stalin. Yes, we do defend Stalin. 
When Khrushchov distorts history and completely negates 
Stalin, naturally we have the inescapable duty to come for- 
ward and defend him in the interests of the international com- 
munist movement. 

In defending Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party defends 
his correct side, defends the glorious history of struggle of the 
first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky) 
on the Attitude of the Party Towards the Trade Unions", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. XIII, p. 165. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Notes of a Publicist", Selected Works, Eng. ed., Inter- 
national Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 312. 

^Ibid., p. 313. 

122 



created by the October Revolution; it defends the glorious 
history of struggle of the CPSU; it defends the prestige of the 
international communist movement among working people 
throughout the world. In brief, it defends the theory and 
practice of Marxism-Leninism. It is not only the Chinese 
Communists who are doing this; all Communists devoted to 
Marxism-Leninism, all staunch revolutionaries and all fair- 
minded people have been doing the same thing. 

While defending Stalin, we do not defend his mistakes. Long 
ago the Chinese Communists had first-hand experience of some 
of his mistakes. Of the erroneous "Left" and Right opportunist 
lines which emerged in the Chinese Communist Party at one 
time or another, some arose under the influence of certain 
mistakes of Stalin's, in so far as their international sources 
were concerned. In the late twenties, the thirties and the ear- 
ly and middle forties, the Chinese Marxist-Leninists repre- 
sented by Comrades Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi resisted 
the influence of Stalin's mistakes; they gradually overcame 
the erroneous lines of "Left" and Right opportunism and 
finally led the Chinese revolution to victory. 

But since some of the wrong ideas put forward by Stalin 
were accepted and applied by certain Chinese comrades, we 
Chinese should bear the responsibility. In its struggle against 
"Left" and Right opportunism, therefore, our Party criticized 
only its own erring comrades and never put the blame on 
Stalin. The purpose of our criticism was to distinguish be- 
tween right and wrong, learn the appropriate lessons and 
advance the revolutionary cause. We merely asked the err- 
ing comrades that they should correct their mistakes. If they 
failed to do so, we waited until they were gradually awakened 
by their own practical experience, provided they did not or- 
ganize secret groups for clandestine and disruptive activities. 
Our method was the proper method of inner-Party criticism 
and self-criticism; we started from the desire for unity and 
arrived at a new unity on a new basis through criticism and 
struggle, and thus good results were achieved. We held that 

123 



these were contradictions among the people and not between 
the enemy and ourselves, and that therefore we should use 
the above method. 

What attitude have Comrade Khrushchov and other leaders 
of the CPSU taken towards Stalin since the 20th Congress of 
the CPSU? 

They have not made an overall historical and scientific 
analysis of his life and work but have completely negated 
him without any distinction between right and wrong. 

They have treated Stalin not as a comrade but as an enemy. 

They have not adopted the method of criticism and self- 
criticism to sum up experience but have blamed Stalin for all 
errors, or ascribed to him the "mistakes" they have arbitrarily 
invented. 

They have not presented the facts and reasoned things out 
but have made demagogic personal attacks on Stalin in order 
to poison people's minds. 

Khrushchov has abused Stalin as a "murderer", a "criminal", 
a "bandit", 1 a "gambler", a "despot of the type of Ivan the 
Terrible", "the greatest dictator in Russian history", a "fool", 2 
an "idiot", 3 etc. When we are compelled to cite all this filthy, 
vulgar and malicious language, we are afraid it may soil our 
pen and paper. 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as "the greatest dictator 
in Russian history". Does not this mean that the Soviet peo- 
ple lived for thirty long years under the "tyranny" of "the 
greatest dictator in Russian history" and not under the socialist 
system? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary peo- 
ple of the whole world completely disagree with this slander! 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a "despot of the type of 
Ivan the Terrible". Does not this mean that the experience 

1 N. S. Khrushchov, Conversation with the Delegation of the Chinese 
Communist Party, October 22, 1961. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the May Day Reception of 1962. Given 
by the Soviet Government. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Conversation with the Delegation of the Chinese 
Communist Party, October 22, 1961. 

124 



the great CPSU and the great Soviet people provided over 
thirty years for people the world over was not the experience 
of the dictatorship of the proletariat but that of life under 
the rule of a feudal "despot"? The great Soviet people, the 
Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world 
completely disagree with this slander! 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a "bandit". Does not 
this mean that the first socialist state in the world was for a 
long period headed by a "bandit"? The great Soviet people 
and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely 
disagree with this slander! 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a "fool". Does not this 
mean that the CPSU which waged heroic revolutionary strug- 
gles over the past decades had a "fool" as its leader? The 
Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world 
completely disagree with this slander! 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as an "idiot". Does not 
this mean that the great Soviet army which triumphed in the 
anti-fascist war had an "idiot" as its supreme commander? 
The glorious Soviet commanders and fighters and all anti- 
fascist fighters of the world completely disagree with this 
slander! 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a "murderer". Does 
not this mean that the international communist movement 
had a "murderer" as its teacher for decades? Communists of 
the whole world, including the Soviet Communists, completely 
disagree with this slander! 

Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a "gambler". Does not 
this mean that the revolutionary peoples had a "gambler" as 
their standard-bearer in the struggles against imperialism and 
reaction? All revolutionary people of the world, including the 
Soviet people, completely disagree with this slander! 

Such abuse of Stalin by Khrushchov is a gross insult to the 
great Soviet people, a gross insult to the CPSU, to the Soviet 
army, to the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the socialist 

125 



system to the international communist movement, to the rev- 
olutionary people the world over and to Marxism-Leninism. 

In what position does Khrushchov, who participated in the 
leadership of the Party and the state during Stalin's period 
place himself when he beats his breast, pounds the table and 
shouts abuse of Stalin at the top of his voice? In the position 
of an accomplice to a "murderer" or a "bandit"? Or in the 
same position as a "fool" or an "idiot"? 

What difference is there between such abuse of Stalin by 
Khrushchov and the abuse by the imperialists, the reac- 
tionaries in various countries, and the renegades to commu- 
nism? Why such inveterate hatred of Stalin? Why attack him 
more ferociously than you do the enemy? 

In abusing Stalin, Khrushchov is in fact wildly denouncing 
the Soviet system and state. His language in this connection 
is by no means weaker but is actually stronger than that of 
such renegades as Kautsky, Trotsky, Tito and Djilas. 

People should quote the following passage from the Open 
Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and ask Khru- 
shchov: "How can they say these things about the party of 
the great Lenin, about the motherland of socialism, about the 
people who were the first in the world to accomplish a socialist 
revolution, upheld its great gains in fierce battles against in- 
ternational imperialism and domestic counter-revolution, are 
displaying miracles of heroism and dedication in the effort to 
build communism are faithfully fulfilling their internationalist 
duty to the working people of the world"! 

In his article, "The Political Significance of Abuse", Lenin 
said, "Abuse in politics often covers up the utter lack of ideo- 
logical content, the helplessness and the impotence, the annoy- 
ing impotence of the abuser." Does this not apply to the 
leaders of the CPSU who, feeling constantly haunted by the 
spectre of Stalin, try to cover up their total lack of principle, 
their helplessness and annoying impotence by abusing Stalin? 
The great majority of the Soviet people disapprove of such 
abuse of Stalin. They increasingly cherish the memory of 

126 



Stalin. The leaders of the CPSU have seriously isolated 
themselves from the masses. They always feel they are being 
threatened by the haunting spectre of Stalin, which is in 
fact the broad masses' great dissatisfaction with the complete 
negation of Stalin. So far Khrushchov has not dared to let 
the Soviet people and the other people in the socialist camp 
see the secret report completely negating Stalin which he 
made to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, because it is a report 
which cannot bear the light of day, a report which would 
seriously alienate the masses. 

Especially noteworthy is the fact that while they abuse 
Stalin in every possible way, the leaders of the CPSU regard 
Eisenhower, Kennedy and the like "with respect and trust". 1 
They abuse Stalin as a "despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible" 
and "the greatest dictator in Russian history", but compli- 
ment both Eisenhower and Kennedy as "having the support 
of the absolute majority of the American people"! 2 They 
abuse Stalin as an "idiot" but praise Eisenhower and Kennedy 
as "sensible"! On the one hand, they viciously lash at a great 
Marxist-Leninist, a great proletarian revolutionary and a 
great leader of the international communist movement, and 
on the other, they laud the chieftains of imperialism to the 
skies. Is there any possibility that the connection between 
these phenomena is merely accidental and that it does not 
follow with inexorable logic from the betrayal of Marxism- 
Leninism? 

If his memory is not too short, Khrushchov ought to remem- 
ber that at a mass rally held in Moscow in January 1937 he 
himself rightly condemned those who had attacked Stalin, 
saying, "In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin, they 
lifted it against all of us, against the working class and the 
working people! In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin, 



'N. S. Khrushchov, Letter in Reply to J. F. Kennedy, October 28, 
1962. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Replies to the Questions by the Editors-in-Chief 
of Pravda and Izvestia, in Pravda, June 15, 1963. 

127 



they lifted it against the teachings of Marx, Engels and 
Lenin!" Khrushchev himself repeatedly extolled Stalin as an 
"intimate friend and comrade-in-arms of the great Lenin", 1 
as "the greatest genius, teacher and leader of mankind" 2 and 
"the great, ever-victorious marshal", 3 as "the sincere friend of 
the people" 4 and as his "own fathere". 5 

If one compares the remarks made by Khrushchov when 
Stalin was alive with those made after his death, one will not 
fail to see that Khrushchov has made a 180-degree turn in his 
evaluation of Stalin. 

If his memory is not too short, Khrushchov should of course 
remember that during the period of Stalin's leadership he 
himself was particularly active in supporting and carrying out 
the then prevailing policy for suppressing counter-revolu- 
tionaries. 

On June 6, 1937, at the Fifth Party Conference of Moscow 
Province, Khrushchov declared: 

Our Party will mercilessly crush the band of traitors and 
betrayers, and wipe out all the Trotskyist-Right dregs. . . . 
The guarantee of this is the unshakable leadership of our 
Central Committee, the unshakable leadership of our leader 
Comrade Stalin. . . . We shall totally annihilate the 
enemies — to the last man — and scatter their ashes to the 
winds. 

On June 8, 1938, at the Fourth Party Conference of Kiev 
Province, Khrushchov declared: 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, "Stalin and the Great Friendship of the Peoples 
of the Soviet Union", Pravda, December 21, 1939. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the 18th Congress of the CPSU(B), 
Pravda, March 15, 1939. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov and others, Letter to All the Officers and Men 
of the Soviet Red Army, Pravda, May 13, 1945. 

4 N. S. Khrushchov, "Stalin and the Great Friendship of the Peoples 
of the Soviet Union", Pravda, December 21, 1939. 

5 N. S. Khrushchov, "Stalinist Friendship Among the Peoples — 
Guarantee of the Invincibility of Our Motherland", Pravda, December 
21, 1949. 

128 



The Yakyirs, Balyitskys, Lyubehenkys, Zatonskys and 
other scum wanted to bring Polish landowners to the 
Ukraine, wanted to bring here the German fascists, land- 
lords and capitalists. . . . We have annihilated a consider- 
able number of enemies, but still not all. Therefore, it is 
necessary to keep our eyes open. We should bear firmly in 
mind the words of Comrade Stalin, that as long as capitalist 
encirclement exists, spies and saboteurs will be smuggled 
into our country. 

Why does Khrushchov, who was in the leadership of the 
Party and the state in Stalin's period and who actively sup- 
ported and firmly executed the policy for suppressing counter- 
revolutionaries, repudiate everything done during this period 
and shift the blame for all errors on to Stalin alone, while 
altogether whitewashing himself? 

When Stalin did something wrong, he was capable of crit- 
icizing himself. For instance, he had given some bad counsel 
with regard to the Chinese revolution. After the victory of 
the Chinese revolution, he admitted his mistake. Stalin also 
admitted some of his mistakes in the work of purifying the 
Party ranks in his report to the 18th Congress of the CPSU 
(B) in 1939. But what about Khrushchov? He simply does 
not know what self-criticism is; all he does is to shift the 
entire blame on to others and claim the entire credit for 
himself. 

It is not surprising that these ugly actions of Khrushchov 's 
should have taken place when modern revisionism is on the 
rampage. As Lenin said in 1915 when he criticized the revi- 
sionists of the Second International for their betrayal of Marx- 
ism: 

This is not at all surprising in this day of words for- 
gotten, principles lost, philosophies overthrown, and resolu- 
tions and solemn promises discarded. 1 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Preface to N. Bukharin's Pamphlet, Imperialism and 
the World Economy" , Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, 
Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXII, p. 104. 

129 



As the train of events since the 20th Congress of the CPSU 
has fully shown, the complete negation of Stalin by the leader- 
ship of the CPSU has had extremely serious consequences. 

It has provided the imperialists and the reactionaries of all 
countries with exceedingly welcome anti-Soviet and anti- 
Communist ammunition. Shortly after the 20th Congress of 
the CPSU, the imperialists exploited Khrushchov's secret anti- 
Stalin report to stir up a world-wide tidal wave against the 
Soviet Union and against communism. The imperialists, the 
reactionaries of all countries, the Tito clique and opportunists 
of various descriptions all leapt at the chance to attack the 
Soviet Union, the socialist camp and the Communist Parties; 
thus many fraternal Parties and countries were placed in 
serious difficulties. 

The frantic campaign against Stalin by the leadership of 
the CPSU enabled the Trotskyites, who had long been political 
corpses, to come to life again and clamour for the "rehabilita- 
tion" of Trotsky. In November 1961, at the conclusion of the 
22nd Congress of the CPSU, the International Secretariat of 
the so-called Fourth International stated in a Letter to the 
22nd Congress of the CPSU and Its New Central Committee 
that in 1937 Trotsky said a monument would be erected to the 
honour of the victims of Stalin. "Today," it continued, "this 
prediction has come true. Before your Congress the First 
Secretary of your Party has promised the erection of this 
monument." In this letter the specific demand was made that 
the name of Trotsky be "engraved in letters of gold on the 
monument erected in honour of the victims of Stalin". The 
Trotskyites made no secret of their joy, declaring that the 
anti-Stalin campaign started by the leadership of the CPSU 
had "opened the door for Trotskyism" and would "greatly 
help the advance of Trotskyism and its organization — the 
Fourth International". 

In completely negating Stalin, the leaders of the CPSU 
have motives that cannot bear the light of day. 

130 



Stalin died in 1953; three years later the leaders of the 
CPSU violently attacked him at the 20th Congress, and eight 
years after his death they again did so at the 22nd Congress, 
removing and burning his remains. In repeating their violent 
attacks on Stalin, the leaders of the CPSU aimed at erasing 
the indelible influence of this great proletarian revolutionary 
among the people of the Soviet Union and throughout the 
world, and at paving the way for negating Marxism-Leninism, 
which Stalin had defended and developed, and for the all-out 
application of a revisionist line. Their revisionist line began 
exactly with the 20th Congress and became fully systematized 
at the 22nd Congress. The facts have shown ever more clearly 
that their revision of the Marxist-Leninist theories on im- 
perialism, war and peace, proletarian revolution and the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat, revolution in the colonies and semi- 
colonies, the proletarian party, etc., is inseparably connected 
with their complete negation of Stalin. 

It is under the cover of "combating the personality cult" 
that the leadership of the CPSU tries to negate Stalin com- 
pletely. 

In launching "the combat against the personality cult", the 
leaders of the CPSU are not out to restore what they call "the 
Leninist standards of Party life and principles of leadership". 
On the contrary, they are violating Lenin's teachings on the 
interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses and con- 
travening the principle of democratic centralism in the Party. 

Marxist-Leninists maintain that if the revolutionary party 
of the proletariat is genuinely to serve as the headquarters of 
the proletariat in struggle, it must correctly handle the inter- 
relationship of leaders, party, class and masses and must be 
organized on the principle of democratic centralism. Such a 
Party must have a fairly stable nucleus of leadership, which 
should consist of a group of long-tested leaders who are good 
at integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with 
the concrete practice of revolution. 

131 



The leaders of the proletarian party, whether members of 
the Central or local committees, emerge from the masses in 
the course of class struggles and mass revolutionary move- 
ments. They are infinitely loyal to the masses, have close 
ties with them and are good at correctly concentrating the 
ideas of the masses and then carrying them through. Such 
leaders are genuine representatives of the proletariat and are 
acknowledged by the masses. It is a sign of the political 
maturity of a proletarian party for it to have such leaders, and 
herein lies the hope of victory for the cause of the proletariat. 

Lenin was absolutely right in saying that "not a single class 
in history has achieved power without producing its political 
leaders, its prominent representatives able to organise a move- 
ment and lead it". 1 He also said: 

The training of experienced and most influential Party 
leaders is a long-term and difficult task. But without this, 
the dictatorship of the proletariat, its "unity of will", will 
remain a phrase. 2 

The Communist Party of China has always adhered to the 
Marxist-Leninist teachings on the role of the masses and the 
individual in history and on the interrelationship of lead- 
ers, party, class and masses, and upheld democratic centralism 
in the Party. We have always maintained collective leader- 
ship; at the same time, we are against belittling the role of 
leaders. While we attach importance to this role, we are 
against dishonest and excessive eulogy of individuals and ex- 
aggeration of their role. As far back as 1949 the Central Com- 
mittee of the Chinese Communist Party, on Comrade Mao 
Tse-tung's suggestion, took a decision forbidding public 
celebrations of any kind on the birthdays of Party leaders 
and the naming of places, streets or enterprises after them. 

1 V. I. Lenin, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement", Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. II, p. 13. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "A Letter to the German Communists", Collected Works, 
Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, p 492. 

132 



This consistent and correct approach of ours is funda- 
mentally different from the "combat against the personality 
cult" advocated by the leadership of the CPSU. 

It has become increasingly clear that in advocating the 
"combat against the personality cult" the leaders of the CPSU 
do not intend, as they themselves claim, to promote de- 
mocracy, practise collective leadership and oppose exaggera- 
tion of the role of the individual but have ulterior motives. 

What exactly is the gist of their "combat against the per- 
sonality cult"? 

To put it bluntly, it is nothing but the following: 

1. on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to 
counterpose Stalin, the leader of the Party, to the Party or- 
ganization, the proletariat and the masses of the people; 

2. on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to 
besmirch the proletarian party, the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat, and the socialist system; 

3. on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to 
build themselves up and to attack revolutionaries loyal to 
Marxism-Leninism so as to pave the way for revisionist 
schemers to usurp the Party and state leadership; 

4. on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to 
interfere in the internal affairs of fraternal Parties and coun- 
tries and strive to subvert their leadership to suit themselves; 
and 

5. on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to 
attack fraternal Parties which adhere to Marxism-Leninism 
and to split the international communist movement. 

The "combat against the personality cult" launched by 
Khrushchov is a despicable political intrigue. Like someone 
described by Marx, "He is in his element as an intriguer, 
while a nonentity as a theorist." 1 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
states that "while rejecting the personality cult and combat- 

1 "Marx to F. Bolte", Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick 
Engels, Ger. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1950, Vol. II, p. 438. 

133 



ing its consequences" they have "a high regard for leaders 
who . . . enjoy deserved prestige". What does this mean? 
It means that, while trampling Stalin underfoot, the leaders 
of the CPSU laud Khrushchov to the skies. 

They describe Khrushchov, who was not yet a Communist 
at the time of the October Revolution and who was a low- 
ranking political worker during the Civil War, as an "active 
creator of the Red Army". 1 

They ascribe the great victory of the decisive battle in the 
Soviet Patriotic War entirely to Khrushchov, saying that 
in the Battle Of Stalingrad "Khrushchov's voice was very 
frequently heard" 2 and that he was "the soul of the Stalin- 
graders". 3 

They attribute the great achievements in nuclear weapons 
and rocketry wholly to Khrushchov, calling him "cosmic 
father". 4 But as everybody knows, the success of the Soviet 
Union in manufacturing the atom and hydrogen bombs was 
a great achievement of the Soviet scientists and technicians 
and the Soviet people under Stalin's leadership. The founda- 
tions of rocketry were also laid in Stalin's time. How can 
these important historical facts be obliterated? How can all 
credit be given to Khrushchev? 

They laud Khrushchov who has revised the fundamental 
theories of Marxism-Leninism and who holds that Leninism 
is outmoded as the "brilliant model who creatively developed 
and enriched Marxist-Leninist theory". 5 

What the leaders of the CPSU are doing under the cover 
of "combating the personality cult" is exactly as Lenin said: 



1 "Life for the People", Zarya Vostoka, December 17, 1961. 

2 "Created and Reared by the Party", Agitator, No. 2, 1963. 

3 V. I. Chuikov, Speech at the Rally Marking the 20th Anniversary 
of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, Pravda, June 22, 1961. 

4 G. S. Titov, Speech at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 26, 
1961. 

5 A. N. Kosygin, Speech at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 
21, 1961. 

134 



... in place of the old leaders, who hold ordinary human 
views on ordinary matters, new leaders are put forth . . . 
who talk supernatural nonsense and confusion. 1 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
slanders our stand in adhering to Marxism-Leninism, assert- 
ing that we "are trying to impose upon other Parties the order 
of things, the ideology and morals, the forms and methods of 
leadership that flourished in the period of the personality 
cult". This remark again exposes the absurdity of the "com- 
bat against the personality cult". 

According to the leaders of the CPSU, after the October 
Revolution put an end to capitalism in Russia there followed 
a "period of the personality cult". It would seem that the 
"social system" and "the ideology and morals" of that period 
were not socialist. In that period the Soviet working people 
were under a "heavy burden", there prevailed an "atmos- 
phere of fear, suspicion and uncertainty which poisoned the 
life of the people", 2 and Soviet society was impeded in its 
development. 

In his speech at the Soviet-Hungarian friendship rally on 
July 19, 1963, Khrushchov dwelt on what he called Stalin's 
rule of "terror", saying that Stalin "maintained his power 
with an axe". He described the social order of the time in 
the following terms: "... in that period a man leaving for 
work often did not know whether he would return home, 
whether he would see his wife and children again." 

"The period of the personality cult" as described by the 
leadership of the CPSU was one when society was more 
"hateful" and "barbarous" than in the period of feudalism or 
capitalism. 

1 V. I. Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, 
Vol. X, p. 82. 

2 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union to all Party Organizations, to All Communists of 
the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

135 



According to the leadership of the CPSU, the dictatorship 
of the proletariat and the socialist system of society which 
were established as a result of the October Revolution failed 
to remove the oppression of the working people or accelerate 
the development of Soviet society for several decades; only 
after the 20th Congress of the CPSU carried out the "combat 
against the personality cult" was the "heavy burden" removed 
from the working people and "the development of Soviet 
society" suddenly "accelerated". 1 

Khrushchov said, "Ah! If only Stalin had died ten years 
earlier!" 2 As everybody knows, Stalin died in 1953; ten years 
earlier would have been 1943, the very year when the Soviet 
Union began its counter-offensive in the Great Patriotic War. 
At that time, who wanted Stalin to die? Hitler! 

It is not a new thing in the history of the international com- 
munist movement for the enemies of Marxism-Leninism to 
vilify the leaders of the proletariat and try to undermine the 
proletarian cause by using some such slogan as "combating 
the personality cult". It is a dirty trick which people saw 
through long ago. 

In the period of the First International the schemer Baku- 
nin used similar language to rail at Marx. At first, to worm 
himself into Marx's confidence, he wrote him, "I am your 
disciple and I am proud of it." 3 Later, when he failed in his 
plot to usurp the leadership of the First International, he 
abused Marx and said, "As a German and a Jew, he is au- 
thoritarian from head to heels" 4 and a "dictator". 5 



1 Ibid. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Soviet-Hungarian Friendship Rally 
in Moscow, July 19, 1963. 

3 M. A. Bakunin's Letter to Karl Marx, December 22, 1868, Die Neue 
Zeit, No. 1, 1900. 

4 Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, the Story of His Life, Eng. ed., Covici 
Friede Publishers, New York, 1935, p. 429. 

5 "Engels to A. Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Works of Karl Marx 
and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 432. 

136 



In the period of the Second International the renegade 
Kautsky used similar language to rail at Lenin. He slandered 
Lenin, likening him to "the God of monotheists" 1 who had 
reduced Marxism "to the status not only of a state religion 
but of a medieval or oriental faith". 2 

In the period of the Third International the renegade 
Trotsky similarly used such language to rail at Stalin. He 
said that Stalin was a "tyrant" 3 and that "the Stalinist 
bureaucracy has created a vile leader-cult, attributing to 
leaders divine qualities". 4 

The modern revisionist Tito clique also use similar words 
to rail at Stalin, saying that Stalin was the "dictator" "in a 
system of absolute personal power". 6 

Thus it is clear that the issue of "combating the personality 
cult" raised by the leadership of the CPSU has come down 
through Bakunin, Kautsky, Trotsky and Tito, all of whom 
used it to attack the leaders of the proletariat and undermine 
the proletarian revolutionary movement. 

The opportunists in the history of the international com- 
munist movement were unable to negate Marx, Engels or 
Lenin by vilification, nor is Khrushchov able to negate Stalin 
by vilification. 

As Lenin pointed out, a privileged position cannot ensure 
the success of vilification. 

Khrushchov was able to utilize his privileged position to 
remove the body of Stalin from the Lenin Mausoleum, but try 
as he may, he can never succeed in removing the great image 



1 Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed., 
Rand School Press, New York, 1946, p. 54. 
2 Ibid., p. 29. 

3 Leon Trotsky, Stalin, an Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, 
Eng. ed., Harper and Brothers, New York and London, 1941, p. 490. 

4 Leon Trotsky, "The Stalinist Bureaucracy and the Assassination 
of Kirov", On the Kirov Assassination, Eng. ed., Pioneer Publishers, 
New York, 1956, p. 17. 

5 Edvard Kardelj, "Five Years Later", Borba, June 28, 1953. 

137 



of Stalin from the minds of the Soviet people and of the peo- 
ple throughout the world. 

Khrushchov can utilize his privileged position to revise 
Marxism-Leninism one way or another, but try as he may, he 
can never succeed in overthrowing Marxism-Leninism which 
Stalin defended and which is defended by Marxist-Leninists 
throughout the world. 

We would like to offer a word of sincere advice to Comrade 
Khrushchov. We hope you will become aware of your errors 
and return from your wrong path to the path of Marxism- 
Leninism. 

Long live the great revolutionary teachings of Marx, Engels, 
Lenin and Stalin! 



IS YUGOSLAVIA 
A SOCIALIST COUNTRY? 

Third Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
{People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(September 26, 1963) 



XS Yugoslavia a socialist country? 

This is not only a question of ascertaining the nature of the 
Yugoslav state, but it also involves the question of which road 
the socialist countries should follow: whether they should 
follow the road of the October Revolution and carry the so- 
cialist revolution through to the end or follow the road of 
Yugoslavia and restore capitalism. In addition, it involves 
the question of how to appraise the Tito clique: whether it is 
a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism or a renegade 
from the international communist movement and a lackey of 
imperialism. 

On this question there are fundamental differences of 
opinion between the leaders of the CPSU, on the one hand, 
and ourselves and all other Marxist-Leninists, on the other. 

All Marxist-Leninists hold that Yugoslavia is not a social- 
ist country. The leading clique of the League of Communists 
of Yugoslavia has betrayed Marxism-Leninism and the Yu- 
goslav people and consists of renegades from the international 
communist movement and lackeys of imperialism. 

The leaders of the CPSU, on the other hand, hold that Yu- 
goslavia is a socialist country and that the League of Com- 
munists of Yugoslavia bases itself on Marxism-Leninism and 
is a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism. 

In its Open Letter of July 14 the Central Committee of the 
CPSU declares that Yugoslavia is a "socialist country" and 
that the Tito clique is a "fraternal Party" that "stands at the 
helm of the ship of state". 

Recently Comrade Khrushchov paid a visit to Yugoslavia 
and in a number of speeches he revealed the real standpoint 
of the leaders of the CPSU still more clearly, and completely 
discarded the fig-leaf with which they had been covering 
themselves on this question. 

141 



In Khrushchov's opinion, Yugoslavia is not only a socialist 
country but an "advanced" socialist country. There, one 
finds not "idle talk about revolution" but "actual construc- 
tion of socialism", and the development of Yugoslavia is "a 
concrete contribution to the general world revolutionary 
workers' movement", 1 which Khrushchov rather envies and 
wishes to emulate. 

In Khrushchov's opinion, the leaders of the CPSU and the 
Titoites are "not only class brothers" but "brothers tied to- 
gether ... by the singleness of aims confronting us". The 
leadership of the CPSU is a "reliable and faithful ally" of 
the Tito clique. 2 

Khrushchov believes he has discovered genuine Marxism- 
Leninism in the Tito clique. The Central Committee of the 
CPSU was merely pretending when it asserted in its Open 
Letter that "differences on a number of fundamental ideo- 
logical questions still remain between the CPSU and the 
Yugoslav League of Communists". Now Khrushchov has 
told the Tito clique that "we belong to one and the same 
idea and are guided by the same theory", and that both stand 
on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. 3 

Khrushchov has cast the Statement of 1960 to the winds. 

The Statement says: 

The Communist Parties have unanimously condemned 
the Yugoslav variety of international opportunism, a variety 
of modern revisionist "theories" in concentrated form. 

It says: 

After betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed 
obsolete, the leaders of the League of Communists of Yu- 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Mass Rally in Velenje, Yugoslavia, 
August 30, 1963. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Meeting in a Factory of Rakovica, 
Yugoslavia, August 21, 1963. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni, 
Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963, as reported by Tanjug. 

142 



goslavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisionist programme 
to the Declaration of 1957; they set the L.C.Y. against the 
international communist movement as a whole. . . . 

It says: 

[The leaders of the L.C.Y. were] dependent on so-called 
"aid" from U.S. and other imperialists, and thereby ex- 
posed the Yugoslav people to the danger of losing the rev- 
olutionary gains achieved through a heroic struggle. 

It further says: 

The Yugoslav revisionists carry on subversive work 
against the socialist camp and the world communist move- 
ment. . . . they engage in activities which prejudice the 
unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries. 

The Statement is absolutely clear, and yet the leaders of 
the CPSU dare to say: "In accordance with the 1960 State- 
ment, we consider Yugoslavia a socialist country." 1 How 
can they say such a thing! 

One would like to ask: 

Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it 
is guided by a variety of international opportunism, a variety 
of modern revisionist theories? 

Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it 
has betrayed Marxism-Leninism and sets itself against the 
international communist movement as a whole? 

Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it 
carries on subversive work against the socialist camp and the 
world communist movement? 

Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it 
engages in activities which prejudice the unity of all the 
peace-loving forces and countries? 



1 "For the Victory of Creative Marxism-Leninism and Against the 
Revision of the Course of the World Communist Movement", editorial 
board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 11, 1963. 

143 



Can a country be socialist when the imperialist countries 
headed by the United States have nurtured it with several 
billions of U.S. dollars? 

This is indeed out of the ordinary and unheard of! 

Apparently, Comrade Togliatti speaks more plainly than 
Comrade Khrushchov. Togliatti did not mince his words; he 
said the position taken by the Statement of 1960 on the Tito 
clique was "wrong". 1 Since Khrushchov is bent on reversing 
the verdict on the Tito clique, he should be more explicit; 
there is no need to pretend to uphold the Statement. 

Is the Statement's verdict on Yugoslavia wrong and should 
it be reversed? Togliatti says it is wrong and should be 
reversed. Khrushchov in effect also says it is wrong and 
should be reversed. We say it is not wrong and must not be 
reversed. All fraternal Parties adhering to Marxism- 
Leninism and upholding the Statement of 1960 likewise say 
it is not wrong and must not be reversed. 

In doing so, in the opinion of the leaders of the CPSU, we 
are clinging to a "stereotyped formula" and to the "jungle 
laws" of the capitalist world 2 and are " 'excommunicating' 
Yugoslavia from socialism". 3 Furthermore, whoever does 
not regard Yugoslavia as a socialist country is said to be going 
contrary to facts and making the mistake of subjectivism, 4 
whereas in shutting their eyes to the facts and asserting that 
Yugoslavia is a socialist country they are "proceeding from 
objective laws, from the teaching of Marxism-Leninism" and 
have drawn a conclusion based on "a profound analysis of 
reality". 5 

1 Palmiro Togliatti, "Let Us Lead the Discussion Back to Its Real 
Limit", L'Unita, January 10, 1963. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, December 1962. 

3 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of 
the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

4 Ibid. 

5 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, December 1962. 

144 



What are the realities in Yugoslavia? What sort of con- 
clusion ought one to draw if one proceeds from objective laws, 
from the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, and makes a pro- 
found analysis of the realities in Yugoslavia? 

Let us now look into this question. 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE CAPITAL 
IN YUGOSLAV CITIES 

One of Khrushchov's arguments to affirm that Yugoslavia 
is a socialist country is that private capital, private enterprise 
and capitalists do not exist in Yugoslavia. 

Is that true? No, it is not. 

The fact is private capital and private enterprise exist on 
a very big scale in Yugoslavia and are developing apace. 

Judging by the record in all socialist countries, it is not 
strange to find different sectors, including a private capitalist 
sectors existing in the national economy of a socialist country 
for a considerable period after the proletariat has taken polit- 
ical power. What matters is the kind of policy adopted by 
the government towards private capitalism — the policy of 
utilizing, restricting, transforming and eliminating it, or the 
policy of laissez-faire and fostering and encouraging it. This 
is an important criterion for determining whether a country 
is developing towards socialism or towards capitalism. 

On this question the Tito clique is going in the opposite 
direction from socialism. The social changes Yugoslavia in- 
troduced in the early post-war period were in the first place 
not thoroughgoing. The policy the Tito clique has adopted 
since its open betrayal is not one of transforming and elimi- 
nating private capital and private enterprise but of fostering 
and expanding them. 

Regulations issued by the Tito clique in 1953 stipulate that 
"citizens' groups" have the right to "found enterprises" and 
"hire labour". In the same year, it issued a decree stipulat- 
es 



ing that private individuals have the right to purchase fixed 
assets from state economic establishments. 

In 1956 the Tito clique encouraged local administrations to 
foster private capital by its taxation and other policies. 

In 1961 the Tito clique decreed that private individuals 
have the right to purchase foreign exchange. 

In 1963 the Tito clique embodied the policy of developing 
private capitalism in its constitution. According to provisions 
of the constitution, private individuals in Yugoslavia may 
found enterprises and hire labour. 

With the Tito clique's help and encouragement, private 
enterprise and private capital have mushroomed in the cities 
in Yugoslavia. 

According to the official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugo- 
slavia, 1963 published in Belgrade, there are over 115,000 
privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia. But in 
fact the owners of many of these private enterprises are not 
"craftsmen" but typical private capitalists. 

The Tito clique admits that although the law allows private 
owners to employ a maximum of five workers each, there are 
some who employ ten or twenty times as many and even 
some who employ "five to six hundred workers". 1 And the 
annual turnover of some private enterprises is over 100 mil- 
lion dinars. 2 

Politika disclosed on December 7, 1961 that in many cases 
these private entrepreneurs are actually "big entrepreneurs". 
It says: 

It is difficult to ascertain how wide the net of these 
private entrepreneurs spreads and how many workers they 
have. According to the law, they are entitled to keep five 
workers who are supposed to help them in their work. But 
to those who know the ins and outs of the matter, these five 
persons are actually contractors who in turn have their own 



1 M. Todorovic, "The Struggle on Two Fronts", Nasha Stvarnost, 
March issue, 1954. 

2 Vesnik u sredu, December 27, 1961. 

146 



'sub-contractors'. ... As a rule, these contractors no longer 
engage in labour but only give orders, make plans and con- 
clude contracts, travelling by car from one enterprise to 
another. 

From the profits made by these entrepreneurs, one can see 
that they are one hundred per cent capitalists. Svet reported 
on December 8, 1961 that "the net income of some private 
handicraftsmen reaches one million dinars per month", and 
the Belgrade Vecernje novosti said on December 20, 1961 that 
in Belgrade "last year 116 owners of private enterprises each 
received an income of more than 10 million dinars". Some 
entrepreneurs "received an income of about 70 million dinars" 
in one year, which is nearly U.S. $100, 000 according to the 
official rate of exchange. 

In Yugoslav cities not only are there private industrial 
enterprises, private service establishments, private commerce, 
private housing estates and private transport business, there 
are also usurers, who are known as "private bankers". These 
usurers operate openly and even advertise their business in 
the newspapers; one such advertisement runs as follows: "A 
loan of 300,000 dinars for three months offered. 400,000 dinars 
to be returned. Security necessary." 1 

All these are indisputable facts. 

We would like to ask those who are bent on reversing the 
verdict on the Tito clique: Unless it is your intention to de- 
ceive, how can you assert that Yugoslavia has no private 
capital, no private enterprise and no capitalists? 

YUGOSLAV COUNTRYSIDE SWAMPED 
BY CAPITALISM 

Let us now consider the situation in the Yugoslav country- 
side. 
Does it no longer have capitalists, as Khrushchov asserts? 



1 Vesnik u sredu, December 6, 1961. 

147 



No, the facts are quite the reverse. 

The fact that Yugoslavia has been swamped by capitalism 
is even more striking in the countryside. 

Marxism-Leninism teaches us that individual economy, 
petty-producer economy, generates capitalism daily and hour- 
ly, and that only collectivization can lead agriculture on to 
the path of socialism. 

Stalin pointed out: 

Lenin says that so long as individual peasant economy, 
which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominates 
in the country, the danger of a restoration of capitalism will 
exist. Clearly, so long as this danger exists there can be 
no serious talk of the victory of socialist construction in 
our country. 1 

On this question the Tito clique pursues a line running 
counter to socialism. 

In the initial post-war period a land reform took place in 
Yugoslavia and a number of peasants' working co-operatives 
were organized. But in the main the rich-peasant economy 
was left untouched. 

In 1951 the Tito clique openly declared its abandonment of 
the road of agricultural collectivization and began to disband 
the peasants' working co-operatives. This was a serious step 
taken by the Tito clique in betraying the socialist cause. Such 
co-operatives decreased from over 6,900 in 1950 to a little 
more than 1,200 at the end of 1953, and to 147 in 1960. The 
Yugoslav countryside is submerged in a sea of individual 
economy. 

The Tito clique declares that collectivization has not proved 
of value in Yugoslavia. It makes the vicious slander that 



1 J. V. Stalin, "Grain Procurements and the Prospects for the Develop- 
ment of Agriculture", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, 
p. 8. 

148 



"collectivization is the same as expropriation" 1 and is a path 
which "preserves serfdom and poverty in the countryside for 
the longest possible time". 2 It advocates the ridiculous idea 
that the development of agriculture should be "based on the 
free competition of economic forces". 3 

While dissolving many of the peasants' working co-opera- 
tives, the Tito clique has promulgated one law and decree after 
another since 1953 to encourage the development of capitalism 
in the rural areas, granting freedom to buy, sell and rent land 
and to hire farm hands, abolishing the planned purchase of 
agricultural produce and replacing it with free trading in this 
sphere. 

Under this policy, the forces of capitalism spread rapidly in 
the rural areas and the process of polarization quickened. 
This has been an important aspect of the Tito clique's work 
of restoring capitalism. 

Polarization in the countryside is firstly revealed in the 
changes occurring in land ownership. Slavko Komar, formerly 
Yugoslav Secretary for Agriculture and Forestry, admitted that 
in 1959 poorer peasant households with less than 5 hectares 
of land each, which constitute 70 per cent of all peasant house- 
holds, owned only 43 per cent of all privately-owned land, 
whereas well-to-do peasant households with more than 8 
hectares of land each, which form only 13 per cent of all peas- 
ant households, owned 33 per cent of all privately-owned land. 
Komar also admitted that about 10 per cent of the peasant 
households bought or sold land every year. 4 Most of the sellers 
were poorer families. 



1 Edvard Kardelj, Opening Address at the Ninth Plenum of the 
Fourth Federal Committee of the Socialist Alliance of the Working 
People of Yugoslavia, May 5, 1959. 

2 Vladimir Balearic, Speech at the Sixth Congress of the League 
of Communists of Yugoslavia. 

3 Edvard Kardelj, "On Some Problems of Our Policy in the Villages" 
Komunist, Belgrade, No. 4, 1953. 

4 Slavko Komar, "Some Problems Concerning the Countryside and 
the Peasant Households", Socializam, No. 5, 1962. 

149 



The concentration of land is actually much more serious 
than is apparent from the above data. As revealed in the 
July 19, 1963 issue of Borba, the organ of the Tito clique, in 
one district alone there were "thousands of peasant households 
with far more than the legal maximum of 10 hectares of land". 
In Bijeljina Commune, "it was found that five hundred peasant 
households owned estates of 10 to 30 hectares". These are not 
isolated cases. 

Polarization in the rural areas also manifests itself in the 
great inequalities in the ownership of draught animals and 
farm implements. Of the 308,000 peasant households in the 
province of Vojvodina, which is a leading grain-producing 
area, 55 per cent have no draught animals. Peasant households 
with less than 2 hectares of land each, which constitute 40.7 
per cent of all peasant households, have only 4.4 per cent of 
all the ploughs in this region, or an average of one plough 
to 20 households. On the other hand, the rich peasants own 
more than 1,300 tractors and a great deal of other farm machin- 
ery as well as large numbers of ploughs and animal-drawn 
carts. 1 

Polarization likewise manifests itself in the growth of such 
forms of capitalist exploitation as the hiring of labour. 

The February 7, 1958 issue of Komunist revealed that 52 
per cent of the peasant households in Serbia owning more 
than 8 hectares of land hired labourers in 1956. 

In 1962 Slavko Komar said that the heads of some peasant 
households had in recent years "become powerful" and that 
"their income is derived not from their own labour but from 
unlawful trade, from the processing of both their own prod- 
ucts and those of others, from illicit distilling of spirits, from 
the possession of more than the prescribed maximum of 10 
hectares of farmland, which is obtained by purchasing, or more 
often by leasing land, fictitious partition of land among family 
members, seizure or concealment of public land, from the 



1 The Yugoslav journal Index, No. 2, 1962. 

150 



acquisition of tractors through speculation and from the ex- 
ploitation of poor neighbours by cultivating their land for 
them". 1 

Borba stated on August 30, 1962 that "the so-called kind- 
hearted producer ... is a leaseholder of land, a hirer of 
labour and an experienced merchant. . . . Such people are 
not producers, but entrepreneurs. Some never touch a hoe all 
the year round. They hire labour and only supervise the work 
in the field and they engage in trading". 

Usurers, too, are very active in the Yugoslav countryside. 
Interest rates often run to more than 100 per cent per annum. 
In addition, there are people who, taking advantage of the 
plight of the unemployed, monopolize the labour market and 
practise exploitation in the process. 

Deprived of land and other means of production, large 
numbers of poverty-stricken peasants can live only by selling 
their labour power. According to figures given in Politika of 
August 20, 1962, about 70 per cent of the 1961 cash income of 
Yugoslav peasant households with less than 2 hectares of 
land came from selling their labour power. These peasants 
are fleeced right and left and lead a miserable life. 

As facts show, the Yugoslav countryside is dominated by the 
exploiting class. 

In arguing that Yugoslavia is a socialist country, the Open 
Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU states that the 
"socialist sector" in the rural areas of Yugoslavia has increased 
from 6 to 15 per cent. 

Unfortunately, even this pitiable percentage is not socialist. 

By the socialist sector of 15 per cent the leaders of the CPSU 
can only mean such organizations as the "agricultural farms" 
and "general agricultural co-operatives" promoted by the Tito 
clique. But in fact the "agricultural farms" are capitalist farms 
and the "general agricultural co-operatives" are capitalist 
economic organizations engaging mainly in commerce. They 



Slavko Komar, op. cit. 

151 



do not affect the private ownership of land; what is more, their 
main function is to foster the development of the rich-peasant 
economy. 

Problems of Agriculture in Yugoslavia, a work published in 
Belgrade, states that "judging by how they are organized today 
and how they function", the co-operatives "do not in the least 
signify socialist reconstruction of agriculture and of the 
countryside. They are working not so much for the creation 
of socialist strongholds as for the development and promotion 
of capitalist elements. There are cases in which these co- 
operatives are kulak associations". 

The Tito clique has given the "general agricultural co- 
operatives" the monopoly right to purchase agricultural prod- 
ucts from the peasants. Taking advantage of this special 
privilege and of uncontrolled fluctuations in prices of farm 
produce, the so-called co-operatives speculate and through 
such commercial activities exploit the peasants in a big way. 
In 1958 Yugoslavia had a poor harvest. The co-operatives 
and other commercial organs took the opportunity to raise 
the selling prices of farm produce. The year 1959 brought a 
better harvest and the co-operatives broke their contracts with 
the peasants and reduced their purchases, not even hesitating 
to let the crops rot in the fields. 

The "general agricultural co-operatives" and the "agricul- 
tural farms" hire and exploit a large number of long-term and 
temporary workers. According to data in The Statistical Year- 
Book of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia of 1962, 
long-term workers hired by the "cooperatives" alone totalled 
more than 100,000 in 1961. A large number of temporary 
workers were also employed. As disclosed by Rad on December 
1, 1962, hired labourers "are very often subject to the crudest 
exploitation (the working day may be as long as 15 hours), 
and usually their personal income is extremely low". 

It is thus clear that these agricultural organizations of the 
so-called socialist sector are nothing but capitalist agricultural 
organizations. 

152 



Expropriation of poorer peasants and promotion of capitalist 
farms form the Tito clique's basic policy in the sphere of 
agriculture. Back in 1955, Tito said: 

We do not abandon the idea that the day will come in 
Yugoslavia when small farms will be combined in one way 
or another. ... In America they have already done so. 
We must find a solution to this problem. 

In order to take the capitalist path, in 1959 the Tito clique 
promulgated the Law on the Utilization of Cultivated Land, 
stipulating that the land of peasants working on their own, 
who cannot farm it according to requirements, is subject to the 
"compulsory management" of the "general agricultural co- 
operatives" and "agricultural farms". In effect, this means the 
expropriation of poorer peasants and the forcible annexation 
of their land to develop capitalist farms. This is the path of 
capitalist agriculture, pure and simple. 

In speaking of the transition from small peasant economy to 
an economy of large-scale farming, Stalin said: 

There you have two paths, the capitalist path and the 
socialist path: the path forward — to socialism, and the path 
backward — to capitalism. 

Is there a third path? Stalin said, "The so-called third path 
is actually the second path, the path leading back to capital- 
ism." "For what does it mean to return to individual farming 
and to restore the kulaks? It means restoring kulak bondage, 
restoring the exploitation of the peasantry by the kulaks and 
giving the kulaks power. But is it possible to restore the 
kulaks and at the same time to preserve the Soviet power? 
No, it is not possible. The restoration of the kulaks is bound 
to lead to the creation of a kulak power and to the liquidation 
of the Soviet power — hence, it is bound to lead to the forma- 
tion of a bourgeois government. And the formation of a 
bourgeois government is bound to lead in its turn to the 

153 



restoration of the landlords and capitalists, to the restoration 
of capitalism." 1 

The path taken by Yugoslavia in agriculture during the 
past ten years and more is precisely the path of restoring 
capitalism. 

All these are indisputable facts. 

We would like to ask those who are bent on reversing the 
verdict on the Tito clique: Unless it is your intention to deceive, 
how can you assert that there are no capitalists in Yugoslavia? 



THE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST ECON- 
OMY OWNED BY THE WHOLE PEOPLE 
INTO CAPITALIST ECONOMY 

The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia manifests itself 
not only in the fact that private capitalism is spreading freely 
both in the cities and in the countryside. Still more important, 
the "public" enterprises, which play a decisive role in the 
Yugoslav economy, have degenerated. 

The Tito clique's economy of "workers' self-government" 
is state capitalism of a peculiar kind. It is not state capitalism 
under conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat but 
state capitalism under conditions in which the Tito clique has 
turned the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship 
of the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie. The means of pro- 
duction of the enterprises under "workers' self-government" 
do not belong to one or more private capitalists but to the 
new type of bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie of Yugoslavia, 
which includes the bureaucrats and managers and which the 
Tito clique represents. Usurping the name of the state, depend- 
ing on U.S. imperialism and disguising itself under the cloak of 



1 J. V. Stalin, "Speech Delivered at the First Ail-Union Congress of 
Collective-Farm Shock Brigaders", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 
1955, Vol. XIII, p. 248. 

154 



socialism, this bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie has robbed 
the working people of the property originally belonging to 
them. In reality, "workers' self-government" is a system of 
ruthless exploitation under the domination of bureaucrat- 
comprador capital. 

Since 1950, the Tito clique has issued a series of decrees 
instituting "workers' self-government" in all state-owned fac- 
tories, mines and other enterprises in communications, 
transport, trade, agriculture, forestry and public utilities. The 
essence of "workers' self-government" consists of handing 
over the enterprises to "working collectives", with each enter- 
prise operating independently, purchasing its own raw 
materials, deciding on the variety, output and prices of its 
products and marketing them, and determining its own wage 
scale and the division of part of its profits. Yugoslav decrees 
further stipulate that economic enterprises have the right to 
buy, sell or lease fixed assets. 

In the enterprises under "workers' self-government", 
ownership is described by the Tito clique as "a higher form 
of socialist ownership". They assert that only with "workers' 
self-government" can one "really build socialism". 

This is sheer deception. 

Theoretically speaking, as anyone with a slight knowledge 
of Marxism knows, slogans like "workers' self-government" 
and "factories to the workers" have never been Marxist slogans 
but slogans advanced by anarchist syndicalists, bourgeois 
socialists and old-line opportunists and revisionists. 

The theory of "workers' self-government" and "factories to 
the workers" runs counter to the fundamental Marxist theory 
of socialism. It was completely refuted by the classical Marx- 
ist writers long ago. 

As Marx and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifesto, 
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by 
degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all in- 
struments of production in the hands of the State. . . ." 

155 



Engels wrote in Anti-Dilhring, "The proletariat seizes po- 
litical power and turns the means of production into state 
property." 

Having seized political power, the proletariat must con- 
centrate the means of production in the hands of the state of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a fundamental 
principle of socialism. 

In the early period of Soviet power following the October 
Revolution when some people advocated handing the factories 
over to the producers so that they could "organize production" 
directly, Lenin sternly criticized this view, saying that in re- 
ality it meant opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

He acutely pointed out: 

. . . Any direct or indirect legalization of the possession 
of their own production by the workers of individual factories 
or individual professions or of their right to weaken or im- 
pede the decrees of the state power is the greatest distortion 
of the basic principles of Soviet power and the complete re- 
nunciation of socialism. 1 

It is thus clear that "workers' self-government" has nothing 
to do with socialism. 

In fact, the "workers' self-government" of the Tito clique 
does not provide self-government on the part of the workers; 
it is a hoax. 

The enterprises under "workers' self-government" are actual- 
ly in the clutches of the new bureaucrat-comprador bour- 
geoisie represented by the Tito clique. It controls the enter- 
prises' property and personnel and takes away much the 
greater part of their income. 

Through the banks the Tito clique controls the credit of the 
entire country and the investment funds and liquid capital 
of all enterprises and supervises their financial affairs. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "On the Democracy and Socialist Character of the 
Soviet Power". 

156 



The Tito clique plunders the income of these enterprises by 
various means, such as the collection of taxes and interest. 
According to the statistics of the "Report on the Work in 1961 
by the Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia", it took away 
about three-quarters of the enterprises' net income in this 
way. 

The Tito clique seizes the fruits of the people's labour which 
it appropriates chiefly for meeting the extravagant expenses of 
this clique of bureaucrats, for maintaining its reactionary rule, 
for strengthening the apparatus which suppresses the working 
people, and for paying tribute to the imperialists in the form 
of the servicing of foreign debts. 

Moreover, the Tito clique controls these enterprises through 
their managers. The managers are nominally chosen by com- 
petition by the enterprises but are in fact appointed by the 
Tito clique. They are agents of the bureaucrat-comprador 
bourgeoisie in these enterprises. 

In the enterprises under "workers' self-government", the re- 
lations between managers and workers are actually relations 
between employers and employees, between the exploiters and 
the exploited. 

As matters stand, the managers can determine the produc- 
tion plans and the direction of development of these enterprises, 
dispose of the means of production, take the decisions on the 
distribution of the enterprises' income, hire or fire workers 
and overrule the resolutions of the workers' councils or 
management boards. 

Abundant information published in the Yugoslav press 
proves that the workers' council is merely formal, a kind of 
voting machine, and that all power in the enterprise is in the 
hands of the manager. 

The fact that the manager of an enterprise controls its 
means of production and the distribution of its income enables 
him to appropriate the fruits of the workers' labour by means 
of various privileges. 

157 



The Tito clique itself admits that in these enterprises there 
is a wide gap between managers and workers not only in wages 
but also in bonuses. In some enterprises, the bonuses of the 
managers and higher staff are forty times those of the workers. 
"In certain enterprises, the total amount of the bonus which 
a group of leaders received is equal to the wage fund of the 
entire collective." 1 

Moreover, the managers of the enterprises use their privileges 
to make a lot of money by various subterfuges. Bribery, 
embezzlement and theft are still bigger sources of income for 
the managers. 

The broad masses of the workers live in poverty. There 
is no guarantee of employment. Large numbers of workers 
lose their jobs with the closing down of enterprises. According 
to official statistics, in February 1963 the number of the un- 
employed reached 339,000, or about 10 per cent of the number 
of the employed. In addition, every year many workers go 
abroad seeking work. 

Politika admitted on September 25, 1961 that "there exists 
a great gap between some workers and office employees; the 
former look upon the latter as 'bureaucrats' who 'swallow up' 
their wages". 

These facts show that in the Yugoslav enterprises under 
"workers' self-government", a new social group has come into 
being consisting of the few who appropriate the fruits of 
labour of the many. It is an important component of the new 
bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie in Yugoslavia. 

By promoting "workers' self-government", the Tito clique 
has completely pushed the enterprises originally owned by 
the whole people off the path of socialist economy. 

The main manifestations of this are the following: 

First, the abandonment of unified economic planning by the 
state. 



1 Letter of the Central Committee of the L.C.Y. to Its Organizations 
and Leaderships at All Levels, February 17, 1958. 

158 



Second, the use of profits as the primary incentive in the 
operation of the enterprises. They may adopt a variety of 
methods to increase their income and profits. In other words, in 
the enterprises under "workers' self-government" the aim of 
production is not to meet the needs of society but to seek prof- 
its, just as in any capitalist enterprise. 

Third, the pursuance of the policy of encouraging capitalist 
free competition. Tito has said to the managers of the enter- 
prises, "Competition at home will be beneficial to our ordinary 
people, the consumers." The Tito clique also openly declares 
that it allows "competition, the seeking of profits, speculation 
and the like" because "they play a positive role in promoting 
the initiative of the producers, their collective, the communes, 
etc.". 1 

Fourth, the use of credit and the banks as important levers 
to promote capitalist free competition. In granting loans, the 
Tito regime's credit and banking system invites tenders for 
investment. Whoever is capable of repaying the loan in the 
shortest period and paying the highest rate of interest will 
obtain the loan. In their words, this is "to use competition as 
the usual method of allocating investment credits". 2 

Fifth, relations among the enterprises are not socialist rela- 
tions of mutual support and co-ordination under a unified gov- 
ernment plan but capitalist relations of competition and rivalry 
in a free market. 

All this has undermined the very foundation of socialist 
planned economy. 
Lenin said: 

Socialism ... is inconceivable without planned state 
organization which subjects tens of millions of people to 



'Vladimir Bakaric, Report to the Fourth Congress of the League 
of Communists of Croatia, April 7, 1959. 

2 Augustin Papie, "Investment Financing in Yugoslavia", Annals of 
Collective Economy, Belgrade, April-November 1959. 

159 



the strictest observance of a single standard in production 
and distribution. 1 

He also said: 

. . . without all-sided state accounting and control of 
production and distribution of goods, the power of the toil- 
ers, the freedom of the toilers, cannot be maintained, and 
... a return to the yoke of capitalism is inevitable. 2 

Under the signboard of "workers' self-government", all the 
economic departments and enterprises in Yugoslavia are locked 
in fierce capitalist competition. It is quite common for the 
enterprises under "workers' self-government" to engage in 
embezzlement, speculation and hoarding, to inflate prices, 
bribe, hide technical secrets, grab technical personnel and 
even to attack one another in the press or over the radio in 
rivalry for markets and profits. 

The fierce competition among Yugoslav enterprises goes on 
not only in the home market but also in foreign trade. The 
Yugoslav press says that it is not unusual for twenty or thirty 
agents of Yugoslav foreign trade establishments to visit the 
same market abroad, compete among themselves for business, 
and take away the others' customers or suppliers. "From 
selfish motives", these enterprises engaged in foreign trade 
seek to "make profits at any cost" and "is not choosy about 
their means". 

A result of this fierce competition is chaos in the Yugoslav 
market. Prices vary considerably not only in different cities 
or regions but also in different shops in the same place, and 
even for the same kind of goods from the same producer. In 
order to maintain high prices, some enterprises do not hesitate 
to destroy large quantities of farm produce. 

'V. I. Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Men- 
tality", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 
1943, Vol. VII, p. 365. 

2 V I. Lenin, "The Immediate Tasks Of the Soviet Government", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, 
Vol. VII, p. 327. 

160 



Another result of this fierce competition is the closing down 
of large numbers of enterprises in Yugoslavia. According to 
information provided by the Official Bulletin of the FPRY, five 
hundred to six hundred enterprises closed down annually in 
recent years. 

All this shows that the "public" economy of Yugoslavia is 
governed not by the laws of socialist planned economy but by 
those of capitalist competition and anarchy of production. The 
Tito clique's enterprises under "workers' self-government" 
are not socialist but capitalist in nature. 

We would like to ask those who are bent on reversing the 
verdict on the Tito clique: Unless it is your intention to 
deceive, how can you describe the state capitalist economy 
controlled by the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie as a social- 
ist economy? 



A DEPENDENCY OF U.S. IMPERIALISM 

The process of the restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia 
is interwoven with the process in which the Tito clique has 
become subservient towards U.S. imperialism and Yugoslavia 
has degenerated into a U.S. imperialist dependency. 

With its betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, the Tito clique 
embarked on the shameful course of selling out the sovereignty 
of the state and living off the alms of U.S. imperialism. 

According to incomplete statistics, from the conclusion of 
World War II to January 1963 the United States and other 
imperialist powers extended to the Tito clique "aid" totalling 
some U.S. $5,460 million, of which more than 60 per cent, or 
about $3,500 million, was U.S. "aid". The greatest part of 
this U.S. aid was granted after 1950. 

U.S. aid has been the mainstay of Yugoslavia's finances and 
economy. Official statistics show that in 1961 the loans the Tito 
clique obtained from the United States and U.S. -controlled 
international financial organizations totalled U.S. $346 million, 

161 



or 47.4 per cent of the federal budgetary income of Yugoslavia 
in that year. With the inclusion of aid from other Western 
countries, the money received by the Tito clique from Western 
countries in 1961 totalled U.S. $493 million, or 67.6 per cent 
of the federal budgetary income in that year. 

In order to obtain U.S. aid, the Tito clique has concluded a 
series of traitorous treaties with the United States. 

The notes exchanged between Yugoslavia and the United 
States in 1951 concerning the Agreement Relating to Mutual 
Defense Assistance stipulated that U.S. Government officials 
have the "freedom . . . , without restriction", to observe and 
supervise the receipt and distribution in Yugoslavia of U.S. 
military aid material and has "full access to communication 
and information facilities". The agreement also required 
Yugoslavia to provide the United States with strategic raw 
materials. 

The Agreement Regarding Military Assistance signed be- 
tween Yugoslavia and the United States in 1951 stipulated that 
Yugoslavia should "make the full contribution ... to the 
development and maintenance of the defensive Strength of 
the free world" and should be ready to provide troops for 
the United Nations. Under this agreement the military mis- 
sion sent by the United States was to directly supervise the 
training of Yugoslav troops. 

The Yugoslav-U.S. Economic Co-operation Agreement of 
1952 stipulated that Yugoslavia must use U.S. aid for "further- 
ing fundamental individual human rights, freedoms and dem- 
ocratic institutions", that is, for furthering capitalism. 

In 1954 Yugoslavia concluded a Treaty of Alliance, Political 
Co-operation and Mutual Assistance with Greece and Turkey, 
both members of NATO. The treaty provided for military and 
diplomatic co-ordination among the three countries, thus mak- 
ing Yugoslavia a virtual member of the U.S. -controlled military 
bloc. 

Since 1954 Yugoslavia has concluded a series of agreements 
with the United States, selling out its sovereignty. More than 

162 



fifty such agreements were signed in the period between 1957 
and 1962. 

Because of the conclusion of these treaties and agreements 
and because the Tito clique has made Yugoslavia dependent on 
U.S. imperialism, the United States enjoys the following rights 
in Yugoslavia: 

(1) to control its military affairs; 

(2) to control its foreign affairs; 

(3) to interfere in its internal affairs; 

(4) to manipulate and supervise its finance; 

(5) to control its foreign trade; 

(6) to plunder its strategic resources; and 

(7) to collect military and economic intelligence. 

The independence and sovereignty of Yugoslavia have thus 
been auctioned off by the Tito clique. 

In addition to selling out Yugoslavia's sovereign rights in a 
series of unequal treaties with the United States, the Tito 
clique, in order to secure U.S. aid, has taken one step after 
another in domestic and foreign policy to comply with Western 
monopoly capital's demand to penetrate Yugoslavia. 

Starting from 1950 the Tito clique abolished the monopoly 
of foreign trade by the state. 

The Act on Foreign Trade Activities promulgated in 1953 
permitted enterprises to conduct foreign trade independently 
and to have direct transactions with Western monopoly cap- 
italist enterprises. 

In 1961 the Tito regime introduced reforms in the systems of 
foreign exchange and foreign trade. Their main content was 
the further relaxation of restrictions on import and export 
trade. Complete liberalization was effected in the import of 
major semi-processed materials and certain consumers goods, 
and restrictions on the import of other commodities were re- 
laxed in varying degrees. Restrictions were removed on the 
supply of foreign exchange needed for so-called unrestricted 
imports. 

163 



Everybody knows that state monopoly of foreign trade is a 
basic principle of socialism. 

Lenin said that the industrial proletariat "is absolutely not 
in a position to recover our industry and to make Russia an 
industrial country without the protection of industry, which 
in no way refers to its protection by customs policy, but solely 
and exclusively refers to its protection by monopoly of foreign 
trade." 1 

Stalin said that "the monopoly of foreign trade is one of the 
unshakable foundations of the platform of the Soviet Govern- 
ment" and that the abolition of the monopoly of foreign trade 
would mean "abandoning the industrialization of the country", 
"flooding the U.S.S.R. with goods from capitalist countries", 
and "transforming our country from an independent country 
into a semi-colonial one". 2 

To abolish the state monopoly of foreign trade, as the Tito 
regime has done, is to throw the door wide open to imperialist 
monopoly capital. 

What are the economic consequences of the fact that the 
Tito clique receives large amounts of U.S. aid and keeps 
Yugoslavia's door wide open to imperialism? 

First, Yugoslavia has become a market for imperialist 
dumping. 

Huge quantities of industrial goods and farm produce from 
the imperialist countries have flooded the Yugoslav market. 
In pursuit of profits the Yugoslav comprador capitalists, who 
make piles of money by serving foreign monopoly capital, keep 
on importing commodities even though they can be produced 
at home and even when stocks are huge. Politika admitted on 
July 25, 1961 that it "was everywhere evident" that Yugoslav 
industry "was suffering blows from the continuous and very 
complicated competition of foreign industry". 



1 V. I. Lenin, "On the Monopoly of Foreign Trade", Collected Works, 
Russ. ed„ SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 420. 

2 J. V. Stalin, "Interview with the First American Labour Delegation", 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. X, pp. 115 and 116. 

164 



Secondly, Yugoslavia has become an outlet for imperialist 
investment. 

Many Yugoslav industrial enterprises have been built with 
"aid" from the United States and other imperialist countries. 
A great deal of foreign private monopoly capital has penetrated 
into Yugoslavia. According to Augustin Papie, the general 
manager of the Yugoslav Investment Bank, in the period be- 
tween 1952 and 1956 "the participation of foreign funds 
reached 32.5 per cent of the total value of economic invest- 
ments". U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said on February 
5, 1962 that Yugoslavia's source of capital was "largely in the 
West." 

Thirdly, Yugoslavia has become a base from which imperial- 
ism extracts raw materials. 

In accordance with the Agreement Regarding Military As- 
sistance, the Tito clique has since 1951 continually supplied 
the United States with large quantities of strategic raw ma- 
terials. According to the Statistical Year-Book of the Federal 
People's Republic of Yugoslavia of 1961, about half of Yugo- 
slavia's exports of important metals, such as magnesium, lead, 
zinc and antimony, have gone to the United States since 1957. 

Fourthly, the industrial enterprises of Yugoslavia have be- 
come assembly shops for Western monopoly capitalist com- 
panies. 

Many major Yugoslav industries produce under licence from 
Western countries and are dependent on imports of semi- 
processed materials, parts, spare parts and semi-manufactured 
products. The production of these industries is under the con- 
trol of Western monopoly capital. 

In fact, many of the industrial products sold as home prod- 
ucts in Yugoslavia are assembled from imported ready-made 
parts and have Yugoslav trade marks attached. Vesnik u sredu 
of April 25, 1962 said that "some of our industrial enterprises 
are becoming a special type of commercial organization, which 
does not produce but assembles, only sticking its own trade 
mark on the products of others". 

165 



In these circumstances, Yugoslavia has become an integral 
part of the world market of Western monopoly capital. In the 
financial and economic spheres it is tightly bound to the cap- 
italist world market and has degenerated into a dependency 
of imperialism, and particularly of U.S. imperialism. 

When a socialist country sells out its independence and 
sovereign rights and becomes an imperialist appendage, the 
restoration of the capitalist system is the inevitable result. 

The special road of building "socialism" by relying on U.S. 
aid advertised by the Tito clique is nothing but a road for turn- 
ing a socialist system into a capitalist system to meet the needs 
of imperialism, a road of degeneration from an independent 
country into a semi-colony. 

Khrushchov insists that this dependency of U.S. imperialism 
is "building socialism". This is fantastic. A self-styled social- 
ism having U.S. aid as its trade mark is a new variety to be 
added to the bogus brands of socialism, which were criticized 
by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and this is presumably a great 
contribution on the part of Tito and Khrushchov in "creative- 
ly developing the theory of Marxism-Leninism". 



A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SPECIAL 
DETACHMENT OF U.S. IMPERIALISM 

Judging by the counter-revolutionary role played by the 
Tito clique in international relations and by its reactionary 
foreign policy, Yugoslavia is still farther from being a socialist 
country. 

In the international arena the Tito clique is a special detach- 
ment of U.S. imperialism for sabotaging the world revolution. 

By setting the example of restoring capitalism in Yugoslavia, 
the Tito clique is helping U.S. imperialism to push its policy of 
"peaceful evolution" inside the socialist countries. 

Under the signboard of a socialist country, the Tito clique 
is frantically opposing and disrupting the socialist camp and 

166 



serving as an active agent in the anti-Chinese campaign. 

Under the cover of non-alignment and active coexistence 
the Tito clique is trying to wreck the national liberation move- 
ment in Asia, Africa and Latin America and is serving U.S 
neo-colonialism. 

The Tito clique spares no effort to prettify U.S. imperialism 
and benumb the people of the world in their struggle against 
the imperialist policies of war and aggression. 

Under the pretext of opposing "Stalinism", the Tito clique 
is peddling revisionist poison everywhere and opposing rev- 
olution by the people in all countries. 

The Tito clique has invariably played the role of a lackey of 
U.S. imperialism in the major international events of the past 
ten years and more. 

1. The revolution in Greece. On July 10, 1949 Tito closed 
the border between Yugoslavia and Greece against the Greek 
people's guerrillas. At the same time, he allowed the Greek 
fascist royalist troops to pass through Yugoslav territory in 
order to attack the guerrillas from the rear. In this way the 
Tito clique helped the U.S. -British imperialists to strangle the 
Greek people's revolution. 

2. The Korean War. In a statement issued on September 
6, 1950, Edvard Kardelj, who was then foreign minister, 
brazenly slandered the Korean people's just war of resistance 
to aggression and defended U.S. imperialism. On December 
1, speaking at the U.N. Security Council, the representative 
of the Tito clique attacked China for its "active interference 
in the Korean War". The Tito clique also voted in the United 
Nations for the embargo on China and Korea. 

3. The Vietnamese people's war of liberation. On the eve 
of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China in April 1954, the 
Tito clique violently slandered the just struggle of the Viet- 
namese people, asserting that they were being used by Moscow 
and Peking "as a card in their post-war policy of cold war". 1 



' Borba, April 23, 1954. 

167 



They said of the Vietnamese people's great battle to liberate 
Dien Bien Phu that it was "not a gesture of goodwill". 1 

4. Subversion against Albania. The Tito clique has been 
carrying on subversive activities and armed provocations 
against socialist Albania for a long time. It has engineered four 
major cases of treason, in 1944, 1948, 1956 and 1960. Its armed 
provocations on the Yugoslav-Albanian border numbered more 
than 470 from 1948 to 1958. In 1960 the Tito clique and the 
Greek reactionaries planned an armed attack on Albania in 
co-ordination with the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. 

5. The counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary. The 
Tito clique played a shameful role of an interventionist pro- 
vocateur in the Hungarian counter-revolutionary rebellion in 
October 1956. After the outbreak of the rebellion, Tito pub- 
lished a letter supporting the counter-revolutionary measures 
of the traitor Nagy. On November 3 the Tito clique bade 
Nagy seek asylum in the Yugoslav Embassy in Hungary. In 
a speech on November 11, Tito characterized the counter-revo- 
lutionary rebellion as resistance by "progressives" and impu- 
dently questioned whether the "course of Yugoslavia" or the 
"course of Stalinism" would win. 

6. The Middle Eastern events. In 1958 troops were sent 
by U.S. imperialism to occupy Lebanon and by British im- 
perialism to occupy Jordan. There arose a world-wide wave 
of protest demanding the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. 
and British troops. At the emergency session of the U.N. Gen- 
eral Assembly on the Middle Eastern situation, Koca Popovic, 
State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, said that 
"it is not a question of whether we insist on condemning or 
approving the actions taken by the United States and Great 
Britain". He advocated intervention by the United Nations, 
an organization which is under the control of U.S. imperialism. 

7. The event in the Taiwan Straits. In the autumn of 1958, 
the Chinese People's Liberation Army shelled Quemoy in 



l Borba, May 8, 1954. 

168 



order to counter the U.S. imperialist provocations in the Tai- 
wan Straits and to punish the Chiang Kai-shek gang, which 
is a U.S. imperialist lackey. The Tito clique maligned China's 
just struggle as "a danger to the whole world" 1 and "harmful 
to peace". 2 

8. The U-2 incident. In 1960 the United States sent a U-2 
spy plane to intrude into the Soviet Union and sabotaged the 
four-power summit conference scheduled to be held in Paris. 
On May 17 Tito issued a statement attacking the correct stand 
then taken by the Soviet Government as creating "such large- 
scale disputes". 

9. The Japanese people's patriotic struggle against the 
United States. In June 1960 the Japanese people waged a just 
and patriotic struggle against the United States, which was 
unprecedented in its scale. But the Tito clique defended U.S. 
imperialism, saying that the U.S. occupation of Japan "pro- 
moted the democratization of political life in Japan". 3 Subse- 
quently, it attacked the statement of Inejiro Asanuma, the late 
President of the Japanese Socialist Party, that "U.S. imperi- 
alism is the common enemy of the Japanese and Chinese peo- 
ples", accusing him of "standing for an extremist line". 4 

10. The struggle of the Indonesian people. The Tito clique 
tried to sabotage the Indonesian people's struggle against im- 
perialism. It engaged in base activities in an effort to prevent 
the establishment of a "Nasakom" cabinet in Indonesia, that 
is, a government of national unity comprising the nationalists, 
religious circles and the Communists. 

11. The Congo event. In the summer of 1960, when U.S. 
imperialism carried out armed aggression in the Congo under 
the flag of the United Nations, the Tito clique not only voted 
for U.S. imperialism in the United Nations but, in accordance 
with the desire of U.S. imperialism, sent air force personnel 



1 Slobodni Dom, September 4, 1958. 

2 Slovenski Porocevalec, September 9, 1958. 

3 Komunist, Belgrade, June 2, 1960. 

4 Foreign Political Bulletin, February 1, 1962. 

169 



to the Congo to take a direct part in the bloody suppression of 
the Congolese people. 

12. The Laotian question. When U.S. imperialism stepped 
up its intervention in Laos in January 1961, the Tito clique 
spread the view that the United States "is really concerned for 
the peace and neutralization of Laos". 1 When U.S. imperialism 
engineered political assassinations and armed conflicts in Laos 
in May 1963, the Tito clique attacked the Laotian patriotic 
forces for "putting all the blame on the United States". 2 

13. The U.S. Alliance for Progress programme. In August 
1961 the United States forced various Latin American countries 
to sign the Alliance for Progress programme, which was a new 
U.S. imperialist instrument for the enslavement of the Latin 
American people. This programme of aggression was strongly 
opposed by the Latin American people but was praised by the 
Tito clique as "meeting in a large measure the requirements 
of the Latin American countries". 3 

14. The Sino-Indian border conflict. Ever since the Indian 
reactionaries created tension on the Sino-Indian border in 1959, 
the Tito clique has consistently supported the expansionism, 
aggression and provocations of the Indian reactionaries against 
China. It openly spread the lie that "the demarcation of the 
boundary was already completed at the beginning of the pres- 
ent century and put into the shape of the well-known 
McMahon Line", 4 and did its best to confuse right and wrong, 
making the slander that China "permits itself to revise its 
border with India wilfully and by force" 5 and "committed ag- 
gression" against India. 6 

15. The Cuban revolution and the Caribbean crisis. The Tito 
clique has made numerous comments attacking Cuba, saying 



1 Borba, January 13, 1961. 

2 Politika, May 5, 1963. 

3 Komunist, Belgrade, August 17, 1961. 

4 Rad, September 12, 1959. 

5 Borba, December 26, 1960. 

6 Politika, September 3, 1959. 

170 



that Cuba "believes only in revolution" 1 and that the Cuban 
revolution is "not so much a model as an exception to the road 
of revolution". 2 During the Caribbean crisis in the autumn of 
1962, the Tito clique defended U.S. imperialist aggression, 
saying that "the difficulties started when the Cuban revolu- 
tion trod on the pet corns of the U.S. companies", 3 and that 
"if it is said that the United States was irritated by the estab- 
lishment of rocket bases in Cuba, in its close neighbourhood, 
that would be understandable". 4 

From all this, people cannot fail to see that for the past ten 
years and more the Tito clique has desperately opposed the 
socialist countries, tried to sabotage the national liberation 
movement, maligned the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle 
of the people in all countries and actively served imperialism 
and especially U.S. imperialism. 

Khrushchov has said repeatedly that there is "unanimity" 
and "accord" between the leadership of the CPSU and the Tito 
clique in their positions on international problems. 5 Well, then 
we would like to ask whether or not there is unanimity or ac- 
cord between your activities and the counter-revolutionary 
crimes of the Tito clique. Please answer, if you have the 
courage. 



THE DEGENERATION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE 

PROLETARIAT INTO THE DICTATORSHIP 

OF THE BOURGEOISIE 

In the final analysis, the fact that capitalism has swamped 
Yugoslavia in both town and country, the degeneration of an 



1 The Rebellion of Cuba, Belgrade, November 1962. 
2 Politika, January 1, 1963. 
3 Komunist, Belgrade, September 13, 1962. 
"■Politika, November 13, 1962. 

5 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Mass Rally in Split, Yugoslavia, 
August 24, 1963. 

171 



economy owned by the whole people into a state capitalist 
economy and the decline of Yugoslavia into a dependency of 
U.S. imperialism are all due to the degeneration of the Party 
and state power in Yugoslavia. 

Fighting heroically against the German and Italian fascist 
aggressors during World War II, the Communist Party and 
people of Yugoslavia overthrew the reactionary rule of imperi- 
alism and its lackey in Yugoslavia and established the people's 
democratic state power under the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat. 

Not long afterwards, the leading group of the Yugoslav 
Communist Party betrayed Marxism-Leninism and embarked 
on the path of revisionism, bringing about the gradual de- 
generation of the Party and state power in Yugoslavia. 

The Yugoslav Communist Party had a glorious tradition of 
revolutionary struggles. The betrayal of the Tito clique met 
first of all with strong resistance inside the Party. To suppress 
this resistance, the Tito clique used its power to expel and 
purge from the Party a great number of Communists loyal to 
Marxism-Leninism. In the period from 1948 to 1952 alone, 
more than 200,000 Party members, or half the original mem- 
bership of the Yugoslav Communist Party, were expelled. 
Taking action against the so-called Cominform elements, it 
arrested and slaughtered large numbers of Marxist-Leninists 
and revolutionary cadres and people, the number of Commu- 
nists and active revolutionaries arrested and imprisoned alone 
exceeding thirty thousand. At the same time, the Tito clique 
opened the door wide to counter-revolutionaries, bourgeois 
elements, all kinds of anti-socialist elements and careerists 
seeking position and wealth through their membership cards. 
In November 1952 the Tito clique declared that "the appella- 
tion Party no longer fits" and changed the name, the Com- 
munist Party of Yugoslavia, into the League of Communists 
of Yugoslavia. In violation of the will of all honest Commu- 
nists in Yugoslavia, it changed the character of the Yugoslav 
Communist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat and made 

172 



the L.C.Y. the virtual instrument for maintaining its dictatorial 
rule. 

In the socialist countries, state power is under the leadership 
of communist political parties. With the degeneration of a 
communist into a bourgeois political party, state power inevi- 
tably degenerates from the dictatorship of the proletariat into 
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. 

The state power of the dictatorship of the proletariat in 
Yugoslavia was the fruit of the protracted and heroic struggle 
of the Yugoslav people. But as the Tito clique turned ren- 
egade, this state power changed its nature. 

The Tito clique has declared, "The means of the revolution- 
ary dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., of the socialist state 
system, become increasingly unnecessary." 1 

But is there no dictatorship in Yugoslavia any longer? Yes, 
there is. While the dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed no 
more, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie not only exists, but 
is a brutal fascist dictatorship at that. 

The Tito regime has set up many fascist prisons and concen- 
tration camps, where tens of thousands of revolutionaries have 
been tortured to death by every kind of inhuman punishment. 
At the same time, the Tito regime has pardoned large numbers 
of counter-revolutionaries and traitors in the anti-fascist war. 
Replying to a United Press correspondent on January 7, 1951, 
Tito admitted that 11,000 political prisoners had been pardoned 
in Yugoslavia. On March 13, 1962 another 150,000 counter- 
revolutionaries living in exile abroad were pardoned. The 
dictatorship over these enemies of the people was indeed 
abolished and they have obtained "democracy". Whatever 
fine-sounding phrases the Tito clique may use, its "democracy" 
is only a democracy for the small number of old and new 
bourgeois elements; for the working people it is out-and-out 
dictatorship. The Tito clique has transformed the revolution- 
ary state machinery, which was built up to suppress the small 

1 Edvard Kardelj, "The New Constitution of Socialist Yugoslavia", 
Borba, September 29, 1962. 

173 



minority of exploiters, into a state machinery for suppressing 
the proletariat and the broad masses. 

The degeneration of the state power in Yugoslavia occurred 
not through the overthrow of the original state power by vio- 
lence and the establishment of a new state power, but through 
"peaceful evolution". In appearance, the same people remain 
in power, but in essence these people no longer represent the 
interests of the workers, peasants and the working people but 
those of imperialism and the old and new bourgeoisie of 
Yugoslavia. 

Utilizing state power and controlling the economic lifeline 
of the country, the Tito clique exploited the Yugoslav working 
people to the utmost extent and brought into being a 
bureaucrat-capitalist class. Being dependent on U.S. imperi- 
alism, this class is strongly comprador in character and is also 
a comprador capitalist class. The state power controlled by 
the Tito clique is that of the dictatorship of the bureaucrat- 
comprador bourgeoisie. 

The above facts show from various aspects that the policy 
pursued by the Tito regime is one of restoring and developing 
capitalism, namely, of reducing Yugoslavia to a semi-colony 
or a dependency. 

The degeneration of the state power in Yugoslavia has led 
to the destruction of the socialist economic system and the 
restoration of a capitalist economic system. When a new 
bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie has gradually come into 
being with the re-establishment of the capitalist economic sys- 
tem in a new form, it demands the intensification of the bour- 
geois dictatorship and the development of a political system 
suited to the capitalist economic system so as to consolidate its 
ruling position. 

This is how the process from the degeneration of the Party 
and state power to the restoration of capitalism in the entire 
social and economic system has been realized step by step in 
Yugoslavia. The process of degeneration has gone on for fif- 

174 



teen years. This is the record of how a socialist state "peace- 
fully evolves" into a capitalist state. 

The Tito clique maintains its rule in Yugoslavia by relying 
on U.S. imperialist support, the state machine of the dictator- 
ship of the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie, the labour 
aristocracy bought by it, and the rich peasants in the coun- 
tryside. At the same time, it uses various cunning means 
to disguise its reactionary features and hoodwink the people. 
But its reactionary policies are extremely unpopular. The 
degeneration of the socialist state into a capitalist state, the 
degeneration of an independent country into a semi-colony or 
a dependency of imperialism, runs counter to the basic in- 
terests of the Yugoslav people, and cannot but be opposed by 
all the honest Communists and the overwhelming majority of 
the people of Yugoslavia. 

We are in deep sympathy with the people and Communists 
of Yugoslavia in their present predicament. Although the Tito 
clique can ride roughshod over the people for a time, we are 
confident that whatever high-handed measures and whatever 
tricks of deception it may resort to, no ruling group will come 
to a good end once it is against the people. The Tito clique is 
of course no exception. The deceived people will gradually 
wake up in the end. The people and Communists of Yugo- 
slavia who have a glorious history will not submit to the 
renegade Tito clique for ever. The future of the Yugoslav 
people is bright. 



THE PRINCIPLED STAND OF THE CPC ON 
THE QUESTION OF YUGOSLAVIA 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
asserts that for a time "the CPC leaders had no doubts as to 
the nature of the socialist system in Yugoslavia", and that 
now the Chinese leaders have "changed their position on the 
Yugoslavian question so drastically". 

175 



True, Yugoslavia was once a socialist state. For a time the 
country advanced along the path of socialism. 

But soon after, owing to the Tito clique's betrayal, the Yugo- 
slav social system began to degenerate step by step. 

In 1954, when Khrushchov proposed to improve relations 
with Yugoslavia, we agreed to treat it as a fraternal socialist 
country for the purpose of winning it back to the path of so- 
cialism and watching how the Tito clique would develop. 

We did not entertain very much hope for the Tito clique 
even then. In its letter of June 10, 1954 to the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC 
pointed out that the fact should be taken into account that as 
the leaders of Yugoslavia had already gone quite far in their 
dealings with imperialism, they might reject our effort to win 
it over and refuse to return to the path of socialism; "but even 
though this should occur, it would not involve any political 
loss to the camp of peace, democracy and socialism — on the 
contrary, it would further expose the hypocrisy of the Yugo- 
slav leaders before the people of Yugoslavia and of the world." 

Unfortunately, our words have proved all too true! Indeed 
the Tito clique has flatly rejected our effort to win it over and 
gone farther and farther along the path of revisionism. 

After it refused to sign the 1957 Declaration, the Tito clique 
put forward its out-and-out revisionist programme in 1958 and 
set this banner of modern revisionism against the 1957 Dec- 
laration which is the common programme acknowledged by 
all Communist and Workers' Parties. The process of restor- 
ing capitalism in Yugoslavia has been realized step by step. 
And internationally, the Tito clique is serving more and more 
energetically as a counter-revolutionary special detachment 
of U.S. imperialism. 

In these circumstances, the attitude every Marxist-Leninist 
Party should take towards the Tito clique is no longer the one 
it should take towards a fraternal Party or a fraternal country, 
nor should it be that of winning the Tito clique over, but it 
should be one of thoroughly exposing and firmly combating 

176 



this gang of renegades. The 1960 Statement has given its clear 
conclusion on this point. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU has 
deliberately evaded the series of important events which oc- 
curred after the meeting of the fraternal Parties in November 
1957 and also the conclusions unanimously reached at the 
meeting of the fraternal Parties in 1960, and tries to defend 
the erroneous stand of the leadership of the CPSU by quoting 
a sentence from the editorial on Yugoslavia in Renmin Ribao 
of September 12, 1957. This is futile. 

The facts prove that our position with regard to the Tito 
clique conforms with reality, is a principled position, and is in 
accord with the common agreement of the meeting of the 
fraternal Parties in 1960. On the other hand, the leaders of 
the CPSU have tried in a thousand and one ways to reverse 
the verdict on the Tito clique, which testifies to their betrayal 
of Marxism-Leninism, their abandonment of the 1960 State- 
ment, and their rendering of assistance to the U.S. imperialists 
and their lackeys in deceiving the people of Yugoslavia and of 
the whole world. 



HAS TITO "REMOVED HIS ERRORS"? OR DOES 
KHRUSHCHOV REGARD TITO AS HIS TEACHER? 

Khrushchov says that the Yugoslav leaders have removed 
very much of what was considered erroneous. But the Titoites 
do not admit that they have committed any errors, much less 
removed them. The Titoites say that they have "no need" to 
correct any error 1 and that "it would just be a waste of time" 2 
and "simply superfluous and ridiculous" to expect them to do 
so. 3 



1 J. B. Tito, Speech at the Belgrade Railway Station, December 20, 1962. 

2 J. B. Tito, Speech at the Seventh Congress of the League of Com- 
munists of Yugoslavia, April 1958. 

3 J. B. Tito, Speech at the Belgrade Railway Station, December 20, 1962. 

177 



Let us look at the facts. Have the Titoites changed their 
revisionist programme? No, they have not. Have they ac- 
cepted the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement? No, they 
have not. Have they changed their revisionist domestic and 
foreign policies? Again, no. 

The new constitution adopted by the Yugoslav Federal Peo- 
ple's Assembly in April 1963 most clearly shows that the Tito 
clique has not in the least changed its revisionist stand. The 
constitution is the legal embodiment of the out-and-out revi- 
sionist programme of the Tito clique. Edvard Kardelj said in 
his report on the draft of the new constitution that it is the 
"legal-political and organizational embodiment" of the con- 
cepts of the programme of the L.C.Y. 

Khrushchov is warmly fraternizing with the Tito clique not 
because it has corrected any of its errors but because he is 
following in Tito's footsteps. 

Consider the following facts: 

1. Tito denounces Stalin in order to oppose Marxism-Lenin- 
ism in its very fundamentals. Khrushchov completely negates 
Stalin for the same purpose. 

2. Both Tito and Khrushchov repudiate the fundamental 
theories of Marxism-Leninism, both malign as dogmatists the 
Chinese and other Communists who firmly uphold Marxism- 
Leninism, and both describe their own revision of Marxism- 
Leninism as a "creative development" of Marxism-Leninism. 

3. Both Tito and Khrushchov laud the chieftains of U.S. 
imperialism. Tito says that Eisenhower "is a man who persis- 
tently defends peace", 1 and that Kennedy's effort "will be 
helpful to the improvement of international relations and to 
the peaceful settlement of pressing world problems". 2 Khru- 
shchov says that Eisenhower "has a sincere desire for peace", 3 

1 J. B. Tito, Talk with a New York Times Commentator, February 
28, 1958. 

2 J. B. Tito, Message of Greetings to J. F. Kennedy, Borba, January 21, 
1961. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, May 1960. 

178 



and that Kennedy "shows solicitude for the preservation of 
peace". 1 

4. Both Tito and Khrushchov play up the horrors of nuclear 
war in order to intimidate the people of the world into aban- 
doning revolutionary struggle. Tito says that once a nuclear 
war breaks out, it will be the "annihilation of mankind". 2 
Likewise, Khrushchov says that once a nuclear war breaks out, 
"we will destroy our Noah's Ark — the globe". 3 

5. Both Tito and Khrushchov preach that a world without 
weapons, without armed forces and without wars can be 
brought into being while imperialism still exists. 

6. The Tito clique proclaims that "active peaceful coex- 
istence" is the cornerstone of Yugoslavia's foreign policy, 4 
while Khrushchov declares that peaceful coexistence is the 
"general line of the foreign policy" of the Soviet Union. 5 

7. Both Tito and Khrushchov proclaim that the possibility 
of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism has in- 
creased. The Tito clique says that "mankind is irresistibly 
entering a long way into the era of socialism through different 
ways". 6 Khrushchov says that the road of the October Rev- 
olution can be replaced by the "parliamentary road". 

8. Tito advocates the introduction of "political and eco- 
nomic integration 7 of the world through "peaceful competi- 
tion". Khrushchov also advocates "all-round co-operation" 
with imperialism through "peaceful economic competition". 



! N. S. Khrushchov, Letter to J. F. Kennedy, October 27, 1962. 

2 J. B. Tito, Report to the Session of the Federal People's Assembly 
of Yugoslavia, April 19, 1958. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Meeting of the Austro-Soviet Society, 
July 2, 1960. 

4 Koca Popovic, Report on Foreign Policy to the Session of the Federal 
People's Assembly of Yugoslavia, Borba, February 27, 1957. 

5 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 
1956. 

6 Programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. 

7 J. B. Tito, Replies to Questions by Washington Post Correspondent 
Drew Pearson, Borba, August 12, 1962. 

179 



9. The Tito clique sabotages the national liberation move- 
ment and national liberation wars in every way. Khrushchov 
opposes the national liberation movement and national libera- 
tion wars on the pretext that "any small 'local war' might 
spark off the conflagration of a world war". 1 

10. The Tito clique has renounced the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. Under the slogan of "the state of the whole peo- 
ple", Khrushchov also renounces the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. 

11. The Tito clique denies that the Communist Party should 
be the vanguard of the working class. Likewise, Khrushchov 
says that the CPSU "has become a party of the entire people". 2 

12. The Tito clique, flaunting the "non-bloc" label, is op- 
posing the socialist camp. Khrushchov also says that "expres- 
sions like blocs etc., are temporary phenomena". 3 They both 
want to liquidate the socialist camp. 

From these facts one must conclude that, both in domestic 
and foreign policy, Khrushchov really regards Tito as his 
teacher and is sliding down the path of revisionism hard on 
Tito's heels. 

Khrushchov has abandoned Marxism-Leninism, scrapped 
the 1960 Statement and wallowed in the mire with the ren- 
egade Tito clique, in complete violation of the interests of 
the Soviet Union, the Soviet people and the people of the 
whole world. This will not be tolerated by the great Soviet 
people, the overwhelming majority of the members of the 
CPSU and cadres at various levels, all of whom have a glorious 
revolutionary tradition. 

The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU 
will never agree with Khrushchov's collusion with the Tito 

1 N. S. Khrushchov, Statement at the Press Conference in Vienna, 
July 8, 1960. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, "On the Programme of the CPSU", delivered at 
the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 1961. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni 
in Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963. 

180 



clique in opposition to the fraternal Parties which uphold 
Marxism-Leninism. 

The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU 
will never agree with Khrushchov's collusion with the Tito 
clique and collaboration with imperialism in opposing socialist 
China, Albania and other fraternal countries and in disrupting 
the socialist camp. 

The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU 
will never agree with Khrushchov's collusion with the Tito 
clique and collaboration with the reactionaries of all countries 
in opposition to the people of the world and to revolution. 

The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU 
will never agree with Khrushchov's efforts to follow the 
example of the Yugoslav revisionists, change the nature of the 
Party and the state and pave the way for the restoration of 
capitalism. 

Khrushchov has caused dark clouds to overcast the Soviet 
Union, the first socialist country in the world. But this can 
only be an interlude in the history of the CPSU and of the 
Soviet Union. People who are deceived and hoodwinked for 
a time will gradually wake up in the end. History has con- 
firmed, and will continue to confirm, that whoever wants to 
turn back the Soviet people in their advance is like the grass- 
hopper in the fable which wanted to stop the chariot. He will 
never succeed in his aim. 



BRIEF CONCLUSION 

The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia provides a new 
historical lesson to the international communist movement. 

This lesson shows us that when the working class has seized 
power, struggle continues between the bourgeoisie and the 
proletariat, struggle for victory continues between the two 
roads of capitalism and socialism, and there is a danger that 

181 



capitalism may be restored. Yugoslavia presents a typical 
example of the restoration of capitalism. 

It shows us that not only is it possible for a working-class 
party to fall under the control of a labour aristocracy, de- 
generate into a bourgeois party and become a flunkey of im- 
perialism before it seizes power, but even after it seizes power 
it is possible for a working-class party to fall under the control 
of new bourgeois elements, degenerate into a bourgeois party 
and become a flunkey of imperialism. The League of Com- 
munists of Yugoslavia typifies such degeneration. 

It shows us that the restoration of capitalism in a socialist 
country can be achieved not necessarily through a counter- 
revolutionary coup d'etat or armed imperialist invasion and 
that it can also be achieved through the degradation of the 
leading group in that country. The easiest way to capture a 
fortress is from within. Yugoslavia provides a typical case 
in point. 

It shows us that revisionism is the product of imperialist 
policy. Old-line revisionism arose as a result of the imperialist 
policy of buying over and fostering a labour aristocracy. Mod- 
ern revisionism has arisen in the same way. Sparing no cost, 
imperialism has now extended the scope of its operations and 
is buying over leading groups in socialist countries and pursues 
through them its desired policy of "peaceful evolution". U.S. 
imperialism regards Yugoslavia as the "bellwether" because it 
has set an example in this respect. 

The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia will make all 
Marxist-Leninists see better and enable people to realize 
more keenly the necessity and urgency of combating modern 
revisionism. 

So long as imperialism exists, there is apparently no ground 
for saying that the danger of the restoration of capitalism in 
the socialist countries has been eliminated. 

The leaders of the CPSU proclaim that they have already 
eliminated the danger of the restoration of capitalism and are 
building communism. If this were true, it would of course be 

182 



heartening. But we see that in fact they are imitating Yugo- 
slavia in every way and have taken a most dangerous road. 
This deeply worries and pains us. 

Out of our warm love for the great Soviet Union and the 
great CPSU, we would like sincerely to appeal to the leaders 
of the CPSU: Comrades and friends! Do not follow the Yugo- 
slav road. Turn back at once. Or it will be too late! 



APOLOGISTS 
OF NEO-COLONIALISM? 

Fourth Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
{People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(October 22, 1963) 



A great revolutionary storm has spread through Asia, 
Africa and Latin America since World War II. Indepen- 
dence has been proclaimed in more than fifty Asian and Afri- 
can countries. China, Viet Nam, Korea and Cuba have taken 
the road of socialism. The face of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America has undergone a tremendous change. 

While revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies suffered 
serious setbacks after World War I owing to suppression by the 
imperialists and their lackeys, the situation after World War II 
is fundamentally different. The imperialists are no longer 
able to extinguish the prairie fire of national liberation. Their 
old colonial system is fast disintegrating. Their rear has be- 
come a front of raging anti-imperialist struggles. Imperialist 
rule has been overthrown in some colonial and dependent 
countries, and in others it has suffered heavy blows and is tot- 
tering. This inevitably weakens and shakes the rule of im- 
perialism in the metropolitan countries. 

The victories of the people's revolutions in Asia, Africa and 
Latin America, together with the rise of the socialist camp, 
sound a triumphant paean to our day and age. 

The storm of the people's revolution in Asia, Africa and 
Latin America requires every political force in the world to 
take a stand. This mighty revolutionary storm makes the im- 
perialists and colonialists tremble and the revolutionary peo- 
ple of the world rejoice. The imperialists and colonialists say, 
"Terrible, terrible!" The revolutionary people say, "Fine, 
fine!" The imperialists and colonialists say, "It is rebellion, 
which is forbidden." The revolutionary people say, "It is rev- 
olution, which is the people's right and an inexorable current 
of history." 

An important line of demarcation between the Marxist- 
Leninists and the modern revisionists is the attitude taken to- 

187 



wards this extremely sharp issue of contemporary world poli- 
tics. The Marxist-Leninists firmly side with the oppressed na- 
tions and actively support the national liberation movement. 
The modern revisionists in fact side with the imperialists and 
colonialists and repudiate and oppose the national liberation 
movement in every possible way. 

In their words, the leaders of the CPSU dare not completely 
discard the slogans of support for the national liberation move- 
ment, and at times, for the sake of their own interests, they 
even take certain measures which create the appearance of 
support. But if we probe into the essence and consider their 
views and policies over a number of years, we see clearly that 
their attitude towards the liberation struggles of the oppressed 
nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America is a passive or scorn- 
ful or negative one, and that they serve as apologists for neo- 
colonialism. 

In the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU of 
July 14, 1963 and in a number of articles and statements, the 
comrades of the CPSU have worked hard at defending their 
wrong views and attacking the Chinese Communist Party on 
the question of the national liberation movement. But the 
sole outcome is to confirm the anti-Marxist-Leninist and anti- 
revolutionary stand of the leaders of the CPSU on the subject. 

Let us now look at the theory and practice of the leaders of 
the CPSU on the question of the national liberation movement. 



ABOLITION OF THE TASK OF COMBATING 
IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM 

Victories of great historic significance have already been won 
by the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America. This no one can deny. But can anyone assert that 
the task of combating imperialism and colonialism and their 
agents has been completed by the people of Asia, Africa and 
Latin America? 



Our answer is, no. This fighting task is far from completed. 

However, the leaders of the CPSU frequently spread the 
view that colonialism has disappeared or is disappearing from 
the present-day world. They emphasize that "there are fifty 
million people on earth still groaning under colonial rule", 1 
that the remnants of colonialism are to be found only in such 
places as Portuguese Angola and Mozambique in Africa, and 
that the abolition of colonial rule has already entered the "final 
phase". 2 

What are the facts? 

Consider, first, the situation in Asia and Africa. There a 
whole group of countries have declared their independence. 
But many of these countries have not completely shaken off 
imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remain 
objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as arenas 
of contention between the old and new colonialists. In some, 
the old colonialists have changed into neo-colonialists and 
retain their colonial rule through their trained agents. In 
others, the wolf has left by the front door, but the tiger has 
entered through the back door, the old colonialism being re- 
placed by the new, more powerful and more dangerous U.S. 
colonialism. The peoples of Asia and Africa are seriously 
menaced by the tentacles of neo-colonialism, represented by 
U.S. imperialism. 

Next, listen to the voice of the people of Latin America. 

The Second Havana Declaration says, "Latin America to- 
day is under a more ferocious imperialism, more powerful 
and ruthless than the Spanish colonial empire." 

It adds: 

Since the end of the Second World War, . . . North Ameri- 
can investments exceed 10 billion dollars. Latin America 



1 Speech of Mirzo Tursun-Zade, Leader of the Soviet Delegation, at 
the Third Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Conference, February 5, 1963. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, "Report on the Programme of the CPSU", de- 
livered at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 1961. 

189 



moreover supplies cheap raw materials and pays high prices 
for manufactured articles. 

It says further: 

. . . there flows from Latin America to the United States 
a constant torrent of money: some $4,000 per minute, $5 
million per day, $2 billion per year, $10 billion each five 
years. For each thousand dollars which leaves us, one dead 
body remains. $1,000 per death, that is the price of what 
is called imperialism. 

The facts are clear. After World War II the imperialists 
have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely 
adopted a new form, neo-colonialism. An important charac- 
teristic of such neo-colonialism is that the imperialists have 
been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule in 
some areas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule and ex- 
ploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and 
trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave 
or control the colonial countries and countries which have al- 
ready declared their independence by organizing military blocs, 
setting up military bases, establishing "federations" or "com- 
munities", and fostering puppet regimes. By means of eco- 
nomic "aid" or other forms, they retain these countries as mar- 
kets for their goods, sources of raw material and outlets for 
their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood 
of the people of these countries. Moreover, they use the United 
Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal 
affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, 
economic and cultural aggression. When they are unable to 
continue their rule over these countries by "peaceful" means, 
they engineer military coups d'etat, carry out subversion or 
even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression. 

The United States is most energetic and cunning in pro- 
moting neo-colonialism. With this weapon, the U.S. imperial- 
ists are trying hard to grab the colonies and spheres of influence 
of other imperialists and to establish world domination. 

190 



This neocolonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form 
of colonialism. 

We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU, under such 
circumstances how can it be said that the abolition of colonial 
rule has already entered the "final phase"? 

In trying to bolster up such falsehoods, the leaders of the 
CPSU have the temerity to seek help from the 1960 Statement. 
They say, does not the 1960 Statement mention the vigorous 
process of disintegration of the colonial system? But this thesis 
about the rapid disintegration of old colonialism cannot pos- 
sibly help their argument about the disappearance of colonial- 
ism. The Statement clearly points out that "the United States 
is the mainstay of colonialism today", that "the imperialists, 
headed by the U.S.A., make desperate efforts to preserve colo- 
nial exploitation of the peoples of the former colonies by new 
methods and in new forms" and that they "try to retain their 
hold on the levers of economic control and political influence 
in Asian, African and Latin American countries". In these 
phrases the Statement exposes just what the leadership of 
the CPSU is trying so hard to cover up. 

The leaders of the CPSU have also created the theory that 
the national liberation movement has entered upon a "new 
stage" having economic tasks as its core. Their argument is 
that, whereas "formerly, the struggle was carried on mainly 
in the political sphere", today the economic question has be- 
come the "central task" and "the basic link in the further de- 
velopment of the revolution". 1 

The national liberation movement has entered a new stage. 
But this is by no means the kind of "new stage" described by 
the leadership of the CPSU. In the new stage, the level of po- 
litical consciousness of the Asian, African and Latin American 
peoples has risen higher than ever and the revolutionary move- 
ment is surging forward with unprecedented intensity. They 



1 "To the Detriment of the Struggle of the Peoples", Pravda, Septem- 
ber 17, 1973. 

191 



urgently demand the thorough elimination of the forces of im- 
perialism and its lackeys in their own countries and strive for 
complete political and economic independence. The primary 
and most urgent task facing these countries is still the further 
development of the struggle against imperialism, old and new 
colonialism, and their lackeys. This struggle is still being waged 
fiercely in the political, economic, military, cultural, ideological 
and other spheres. And the struggles in all these spheres still 
find their most concentrated expression in political struggle, 
which often unavoidably develops into armed struggle when 
the imperialists resort to direct or indirect armed suppression. 
It is important for the newly independent countries to develop 
their independent economy. But this task must never be sep- 
arated from the struggle against imperialism, old and new 
colonialism, and their lackeys. 

Like "the disappearance of colonialism", this theory of a 
"new stage" advocated by the leaders of the CPSU is clearly 
intended to whitewash the aggression against and plunder of 
Asia, Africa and Latin America by neo-colonialism, as repre- 
sented by the United States, to cover up the sharp contradic- 
tion between imperialism and the oppressed nations and to 
paralyse the revolutionary struggle of the people of these con- 
tinents. 

According to this theory of theirs, the fight against imperial- 
ism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys is, of course, 
no longer necessary, for colonialism is disappearing and eco- 
nomic development has become the central task of the national 
liberation movement. Does it not follow that the national lib- 
eration movement can be done away with altogether? There- 
fore, the kind of "new stage" described by the leaders of the 
CPSU, in which economic tasks are in the centre of the picture, 
is clearly nothing but one of no opposition to imperialism, old 
and new colonialism, and their lackeys, a stage in which the 
national liberation movement is no longer desired. 



192 



PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ABOLISHING THE REVOLUTION 
OF THE OPPRESSED NATIONS 

In line with their erroneous theories the leaders of the CPSU 
have sedulously worked out a number of nostrums for all the 
ills of the oppressed nations. Let us examine them. 

The first prescription is labelled peaceful coexistence and 
peaceful competition. 

The leaders of the CPSU constantly attribute the great post- 
war victories of the national liberation movement won by the 
Asian, African and Latin American peoples to what they call 
"peaceful coexistence" and "peaceful competition". The Open 
Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says: 

In conditions of peaceful co-existence, new important vic- 
tories have been scored in recent years in the class struggle 
of the proletariat and in the struggle of the peoples for na- 
tional freedom. The world revolutionary process is devel- 
oping successfully. 

They also say that the national liberation movement is de- 
veloping under conditions of peaceful coexistence between 
countries with different social systems, and of economic com- 
petition between the two opposing social systems 1 and that 
peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition "assist the un- 
folding of a process of liberation on the part of peoples fighting 
to free themselves from the domination of foreign monopo- 
lies", 2 and can deliver "a crushing blow" to "the entire system 
of capitalist relationships". 3 

All socialist countries should practise the Leninist policy of 
peaceful coexistence between countries with different social 



1 "The General Line of the International Communist Movement and 
the Schismatic Platform of the Chinese Leaders", editorial board article 
in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 14, 1963. 

2 Ibid. 

3 B. N. Ponomaryov, "Some Problems of the Revolutionary Move- 
ment", World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962. 

193 



systems. But peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition 
cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The 
victory of the national revolution of all colonies and dependent 
countries must be won primarily through the revolutionary 
struggle of their own masses, which can never be replaced by 
that of any other countries. 

The leaders of the CPSU hold that the victories of the na- 
tional liberation revolution are not due primarily to the rev- 
olutionary struggles of the masses, and that the people cannot 
emancipate themselves, but must wait for the natural collapse 
of imperialism through peaceful coexistence and peaceful com- 
petition. In fact, this is equivalent to telling the oppressed na- 
tions to put up with imperialist plunder and enslavement for 
ever, and not to rise up in resistance and revolution. 

The second prescription is labelled aid to backward countries. 

The leaders of the CPSU boast of the role played by their 
economic aid to the newly independent countries. Comrade 
Khrushchov has said that such aid can enable these countries 
"to avoid the danger of a new enslavement", and that "it stim- 
ulates their progress and contributes to the normal develop- 
ment and even acceleration of those internal processes which 
may take these countries onto the highway leading to so- 
cialism". 1 

It is necessary and important for the socialist countries to 
give the newly independent countries economic aid on the basis 
of internationalism. But in no case can it be said that their 
national independence and social progress are due solely to 
the economic aid they receive from the socialist countries and 
not mainly to the revolutionary struggles of their own people. 

To speak plainly, the policy and the purpose of the leaders 
of the CPSU in their aid to newly independent countries in 
recent years are open to suspicion. They often take an attitude 
of great-power chauvinism and national egoism in matters 
concerning aid to newly independent countries, harm the eco- 

1 N. S. Khrushchov, "Vital Questions of the Development of the So- 
cialist World System", World Marxist Review, No. 9, 1962. 

194 



nomic and political interests of the receiving countries, and as 
a result discredit the socialist countries. As for their aid to 
India, here their ulterior motives are especially clear. India 
tops the list of newly independent countries to which the So- 
viet Union gives economic aid. This aid is obviously intended 
to encourage the Nehru government in its policies directed 
against communism, against the people and against socialist 
countries. Even the U.S. imperialists have stated that such 
Soviet aid "is very much to our [U.S.] interest". 1 

In addition, the leaders of the CPSU openly propose co- 
operation with U.S. imperialism in "giving aid to the backward 
countries". Khrushchov said in a speech in the United States 
in September 1959: 

Your and our economic successes will be hailed by the 
whole world, which expects our two Great Powers to help 
the peoples who are centuries behind in their economic de- 
velopment to get on their feet more quickly. 

Look! The mainstay of modern colonialism [namely, U.S. 
imperialism] will help the oppressed nations "to get on their 
feet more quickly"! It is indeed astonishing that the leaders 
of the CPSU are not only willing but even proud to be the 
partners of the neo-colonialists. 

The third prescription is labelled disarmament. 

Khrushchov has said: 

Disarmament means disarming the war forces, abolishing 
militarism, ruling out armed interference in the internal af- 
fairs of any country, and doing away completely and finally 
with all forms of colonialism. 2 

He has also said: 

Disarmament would create proper conditions for a tre- 
mendous increase in the scale of assistance to the newly 



1 W. A. Harriman, Radio and Television Interview, December 9, 1962. 
2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the World Congress for General Dis- 
armament and Peace, July 10, 1962. 

195 



established national states. If a mere 8-10 per cent of the 
120,000 million dollars spent for military purposes through- 
out the world were turned to the purpose, it would be pos- 
sible to end hunger, disease and illiteracy in the distressed 
areas of the globe within twenty years. 1 

We have always maintained that the struggle for general 
disarmament should be carried on in order to expose and op- 
pose imperialist arms expansion and war preparations. But 
one cannot possibly say that colonialism will be eliminated 
through disarmament. 

Khrushchov here sounds like a preacher. Downtrodden peo- 
ple of the world, you are blessed! If only you are patient, if 
only you wait until the imperialists lay down their arms, free- 
dom will descend upon you. Wait until the imperialists show 
mercy, and the poverty-stricken areas of the world will become 
an earthly paradise flowing with milk and honey! . . . 

This is not just the fostering of illusions, it is opium for the 
people. 

The fourth prescription is labelled elimination of colonialism 
through the United Nations. 

Khrushchov maintains that if the United Nations takes mea- 
sures to uproot the colonial system, "the peoples who are now 
suffering the humiliation arising out of foreign domination, 
would acquire a clear and immediate prospect of peaceful 
liberation from foreign oppression". 2 

In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in Sep- 
tember 1960, Khrushchov asked, "Who, if not the United Na- 
tions Organization, should champion the abolition of the 
colonial system of government?" 

This is a strange question to ask. According to Khrushchov, 
the revolutionary people of Asia, Africa and Latin America 
should not and cannot themselves eliminate colonialism, but 
must look to the United Nations for help. 

1 Ibid. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 
23, 1960. 

196 



At the United Nations General Assembly, Khrushchov also 
said: 

This is why we appeal to the reason and far-sightedness 
of the peoples of the Western countries, to their govern- 
ments and their representatives at this high assembly of the 
United Nations. Let us agree on measures for the abolition 
of the colonial system of government and thereby accelerate 
that natural historical process. 

It is apparent that what he really means by looking to the 
United Nations for help is looking to the imperialists for help. 
The facts show that the United Nations, which is still under 
the control of the imperialists, can only defend and strengthen 
the rule of colonialism but can never abolish it. 

In a word, the nostrums of the leaders of the CPSU for the 
national liberation movement have been concocted to make 
people believe that the imperialists will give up colonialism 
and bestow freedom and liberation upon the oppressed nations 
and peoples and that therefore all revolutionary theories, de- 
mands and struggles are outmoded and unnecessary and should 
and must be abandoned. 



OPPOSITION TO WARS OF NATIONAL 
LIBERATION 

Although they talk about supporting the movements and 
wars of national liberation, the leaders of the CPSU have been 
trying by every means to make the people of Asia, Africa and 
Latin America abandon their revolutionary struggle, because 
they themselves are sorely afraid of the revolutionary storm. 

The leaders of the CPSU have the famous "theory" that 
"even a tiny spark can cause a world conflagration" 1 and that 
a world war must necessarily be a thermonuclear war, which 

'N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, October 1959. 

197 



means the annihilation of mankind. Therefore, Khrushchov 
roars that '"local wars' in our time are very dangerous", 1 and 
that "we will work hard ... to put out the sparks that may 
set off the flames of war". 2 Here Khrushchov makes no 
distinction between just and unjust wars and betrays the Com- 
munist stand of supporting just wars. 

The history of the eighteen years since World War II has 
shown that wars of national liberation are unavoidable so long 
as the imperialists and their lackeys try to maintain their 
brutal rule by bayonets and use force to suppress the revolu- 
tion of oppressed nations. These large-scale and small-scale 
revolutionary wars against the imperialists and their lackeys, 
which have never ceased, have hit hard at the imperialist 
forces of war, strengthened the forces defending world peace 
and effectively prevented the imperialists from realizing their 
plan of launching a world war. Frankly speaking, Khrush- 
chov's clamour about the need to "put out" the sparks of rev- 
olution for the sake of peace is an attempt to oppose revolu- 
tion in the name of safeguarding peace. 

Proceeding from these wrong views and policies, the leaders 
of the CPSU not only demand that the oppressed nations 
should abandon their revolutionary struggle for liberation 
and "peacefully coexist" with the imperialists and colonialists, 
but even side with imperialism and use a variety of methods 
to extinguish the sparks of revolution in Asia, Africa and 
Latin America. 

Take the example of the Algerian people's war of national 
liberation. The leadership of the CPSU not only withheld 
support for a long period but actually took the side of French 
imperialism. Khrushchov used to treat Algeria's national in- 
dependence as an "internal affair" of France. Speaking on 
the Algerian question on October 3, 1955, he said, "I had and 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Press Conference in Vienna, July 
8, 1960. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Replies to Questions by Newsmen at the U.S. 
National Press Club in Washington, September 16, 1959. 

198 



have in view, first of all, that the USSR does not interfere in 
the internal affairs of other states." Receiving a correspondent 
of Le Figaro on March 19, 1958, he said, "We do not want 
France to grow weaker, we want her to become still greater." 

To curry favour with the French imperialists, the leaders 
of the CPSU did not dare to recognize the provisional govern- 
ment of the Republic of Algeria for a long time; not until the 
victory of the Algerian people's war of resistance against 
French aggression was a foregone conclusion and France was 
compelled to agree to Algerian independence did they hur- 
riedly recognize Algeria. This unseemly attitude brought 
shame on the socialist countries. Yet the leaders of the CPSU 
glory in their shame and assert that the victory the Algerian 
people paid for with their blood should also be credited to 
the policy of "peaceful coexistence". 

Again, let us examine the part played by the leaders of the 
CPSU in the Congo question. Not only did they refuse to 
give active support to the Congolese people's armed struggle 
against colonialism, but they were anxious to "co-operate" 
with U.S. imperialism in putting out the spark in the Congo. 

On July 13, 1960 the Soviet Union joined with the United 
States in voting for the Security Council resolution on the 
dispatch of U.N. forces to the Congo; thus it helped the U.S. 
imperialists use the flag of the United Nations in their armed 
intervention in the Congo. The Soviet Union also provided 
the U.N. forces with means of transportation. In a cable to 
Kasavubu and Lumumba on July 15, Khrushchov said that 
"the United Nations Security Council has done a useful thing". 
Thereafter, the Soviet press kept up a stream of praise for the 
United Nations for "helping the government of the Congolese 
Republic to defend the independence and sovereignty of the 
country", 1 and expressed the hope that the United Nations 
would adopt "resolute measures". 2 In its statements of August 



l Izvestia, July 21, 1960. 

2 Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 30, 1960. 

199 



21 and September 10, the Soviet Government continued to 
praise the United Nations, which was suppressing the Con- 
golese people. 

In 1961 the leaders of the CPSU persuaded Gizenga to at- 
tend the Congolese parliament, which had been convened 
under the "protection" of U.N. troops, and to join the pup- 
pet government. The leadership of the CPSU falsely alleged 
that the convocation of the Congolese parliament was "an 
important event in the life of the young republic" and "a 
success of the national forces". 1 

Clearly these wrong policies of the leadership of the CPSU 
rendered U.S. imperialism a great service in its aggression 
against the Congo. Lumumba was murdered, Gizenga was 
imprisoned, many other patriots were persecuted, and the 
Congolese struggle for national independence suffered a set- 
back. Does the leadership of the CPSU feel no responsibility 
for all this? 



THE AREAS IN WHICH CONTEMPORARY WORLD 
CONTRADICTIONS ARE CONCENTRATED 

It is only natural that the revolutionary people of Asia, 
Africa and Latin America have rejected the words and deeds 
of the leaders of the CPSU against the movements and wars 
of national liberation. But the leaders of the CPSU have 
failed to draw the appropriate lesson and change their wrong 
line and policies. Instead, angry at their humiliation, they have 
launched a series of slanderous attacks on the Chinese Com- 
munist Party and the other Marxist-Leninist Parties. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU ac- 
cuses the Chinese Communist Party of putting forward a "new 
theory". It says: 



1 Pravda, July 18, 1961. 

200 



. . . according to which [the new theory] the chief con- 
tradiction of our time is not, we are told, between socialism 
and imperialism, but between the national-liberation move- 
ment and imperialism. In the Chinese comrades' opinion, 
the decisive force in the battle against imperialism is not 
the socialist world system, and not the international work- 
ing-class struggle but, again we are told, the national- 
liberation movement. 

In the first place, this is a fabrication. In our letter of June 
14, we pointed out that the fundamental contradictions in the 
contemporary world are the contradiction between the social- 
ist camp and the imperialist camp, the contradiction between 
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries, 
the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperi- 
alism, and the contradictions among imperialist countries and 
among monopoly capitalist groups. 

We also pointed out: The contradiction between the social- 
ist camp and the imperialist camp is a contradiction between 
two fundamentally different social systems, socialism and 
capitalism. It is undoubtedly very sharp. But Marxist- 
Leninists must not regard the contradictions in the world as 
consisting solely and simply of the contradiction between the 
socialist camp and the imperialist camp. 

Our view is crystal clear. 

In our letter of June 14, we explained the revolutionary 
situation in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the signifi- 
cance and role of the national liberation movement. This is 
what we said: 

1. "The various types of contradictions in the contemporary 
world are concentrated in the vast areas of Asia, Africa and 
Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under im- 
perialist rule and the storm centres of world revolution deal- 
ing direct blows at imperialism." 

2. "The national democratic revolutionary movement in 
these areas and the international socialist revolutionary move- 
ment are the two great historical currents of our time." 

201 



3. "The national democratic revolution in these areas is an 
important component of the contemporary proletarian world 
revolution." 

4. "The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the peo- 
ple in Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and un- 
dermining the foundations of the rule of imperialism and 
colonialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in de- 
fence of world peace." 

5. "In a sense, therefore, the whole cause of the interna- 
tional proletarian revolution hinges on the outcome of the 
revolutionary struggles of the people of these areas, who con- 
stitute the overwhelming majority of the world's population." 

6. "Therefore, the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle 
of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely 
not merely a matter of regional significance but one of overall 
importance for the whole cause of proletarian world 
revolution." 

These are Marxist-Leninist theses, conclusions drawn by 
scientific analysis from the realities of our time. 

No one can deny that an extremely favourable revolutionary 
situation now exists in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Today 
the national liberation revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America are the most important forces dealing imperialism 
direct blows. The contradictions of the world are concentrated 
in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 

The centre of world contradictions of world political strug- 
gles, is not fixed but shifts with changes in the international 
struggles and the revolutionary situation. We believe that, 
with the development of the contradiction and struggle be- 
tween the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Western Europe 
and North America, the momentous day of battle will arrive 
in these homes of capitalism and heartlands of imperialism. 
When that day comes, Western Europe and North America 
will undoubtedly become the centre of world political strug- 
gles, of world contradictions. 

202 



Lenin said in 1913, "... a new source of great world storms 
opened up in Asia. ... It is in this era of storms and their 
'repercussion' on Europe that we are now living." 1 

Stalin said in 1925: 

The colonial countries constitute the principal rear of im- 
perialism. The revolutionisation of this rear is bound to 
undermine imperialism not only in the sense that imperial- 
ism will be deprived of its rear, but also in the sense that 
the revolutionisation of the East is bound to give a powerful 
impulse to the intensification of the revolutionary crisis in 
the West. 2 

Is it possible that these statements of Lenin and Stalin are 
wrong? The theses they enunciated have long been elementary 
Marxist-Leninist knowledge. Obviously, now that the leaders 
of the CPSU are bent on belittling the national liberation 
movement, they are completely ignoring elementary Marxism- 
Leninism and the plain facts under their noses. 



DISTORTION OF THE LENINIST VIEW OF 
LEADERSHIP IN THE REVOLUTION 

In its Open Letter of July 14, the Central Committee of the 
CPSU also attacks the standpoint of the Chinese Communist 
Party on the question of proletarian leadership in the national 
liberation movement. It says: 

. . . the Chinese comrades want to "correct" Lenin and 
prove that hegemony in the world struggle against imperi- 
alism should go not to the working class, but to the petty 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, 
Vol. XI, p. 51. 

2 J. V. Stalin, "The Revolutionary Movement in the East", Works, 
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VII, pp. 235-36. 

203 



bourgeoisie or the national bourgeoisie, even to "certain 
patriotically-minded kings, princes and aristocrats." 

This is a deliberate distortion of the views of the Chinese 
Communist Party. 

In discussing the need for the proletariat to insist on leading 
the national liberation movement, the letter of the Central 
Committee of the CPC of June 14 says: 

History has entrusted to the proletarian parties in these 
areas [Asia, Africa and Latin America] the glorious mission 
of holding high the banner of struggle against imperialism, 
against old and new colonialism and for national indepen- 
dence and people's democracy, of standing in the forefront 
of the national democratic revolutionary movement and 
striving for a socialist future. 



On the basis of the worker-peasant alliance the proletariat 
and its party must unite all the strata that can be united 
and organize a broad united front against imperialism and 
its lackeys. In order to consolidate and expand this united 
front it is necessary that the proletarian party should 
maintain its ideological, political and organizational in- 
dependence and insist on the leadership of the revolution. 

In discussing the need for establishing a broad anti- 
imperialist united front in the national liberation movement, 
the letter of the Central Committee of the CPC says: 

The oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and 
Latin America are faced with the urgent task of fighting 
imperialism and its lackeys. 



In these areas, extremely broad sections of the popula- 
tion refuse to be slaves of imperialism. They include not 
only the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bour- 



204 



geoisie, but also the patriotic national bourgeoisie and even 
certain kings, princes and aristocrats who are patriotic. 

Our views are perfectly clear. In the national liberation 
movement it is necessary both to insist on leadership by the 
proletariat and to establish a broad anti-imperialist united 
front. What is wrong with these views? Why should the 
leadership of the CPSU distort and attack these correct views? 

It is not we, but the leaders of the CPSU, who have 
abandoned Lenin's views on proletarian leadership in the 
revolution. 

The wrong line of the leaders of the CPSU completely aban- 
dons the task of fighting imperialism and colonialism and op- 
poses wars of national liberation; this means it wants the 
proletariat and the Communist Parties of the oppressed nations 
and countries to roll up their patriotic banner of opposing im- 
perialism and struggling for national independence and sur- 
render it to others. In that case, how could one even talk about 
an anti-imperialist united front or of proletarian leadership? 

Another idea often propagated by the leaders of the CPSU 
is that a country can build socialism under no matter what 
leadership, including even that of a reactionary nationalist like 
Nehru. This is still farther removed from the idea of prole- 
tarian leadership. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
misinterprets the proper relationship of mutual support which 
should exist between the socialist camp and the working-class 
movement in the capitalist countries on the one hand and the 
national liberation movement on the other, asserting that the 
national liberation movement should be "led" by the socialist 
countries and the working-class movement in the metropolitan 
countries. It has the audacity to claim that this is "based" on 
Lenin's views on proletarian leadership. Obviously this is a 
gross distortion and revision of Lenin's thinking. It shows that 
the leaders of the CPSU want to impose their line of abolishing 
revolution on the revolutionary movement of the oppressed na- 
tions. 

205 



THE PATH OF NATIONALISM AND 
DEGENERATION 

In their Open Letter of July 14, the leaders of the CPSU 
attempt to pin on the Chinese Communist Party the charge 
of "isolating the national-liberation movement from the in- 
ternational working class and its creation, the socialist world 
system". They also accuse us of "separating" the national 
liberation movement from the socialist system and the 
working-class movement in the Western capitalist countries 
and "counterposing" the former to the latter. There are other 
Communists, like the leaders of the French Communist Party, 
who loudly echo the leaders of the CPSU. 

But what are the facts? Those who counterpose the national 
liberation movement to the socialist camp and the working- 
class movement in the Western capitalist countries are none 
other than the leaders of the CPSU and their followers, who 
do not support, and even oppose, the national liberation move- 
ment. 

The Chinese Communist Party has consistently maintained 
that the revolutionary struggles of all peoples support each 
other. We always consider the national liberation movement 
from the viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian in- 
ternationalism, from the viewpoint of the proletarian world 
revolution as a whole. We believe the victorious development 
of the national liberation revolution is of tremendous signif- 
icance for the socialist camp, the working-class movement in 
the capitalist countries and the cause of defending world peace. 

But the leaders of the CPSU and their followers refuse to 
acknowledge this significance. They talk only about the sup- 
port which the socialist camp gives the national liberation 
movement and ignore the support which the latter gives the 
former. They talk only about the role of the working-class 
movement in the Western capitalist countries in dealing blows 
at imperialism and belittle or ignore the role of the national 
liberation movement in the same connection. Their stand con- 

206 



tradicts Marxism-Leninism and disregards the facts, and is 
therefore wrong. 

The question of what attitude to take towards the relation- 
ship between the socialist countries and the revolution of the 
oppressed nations, and towards the relationship between the 
working-class movement in the capitalist countries and the 
revolution of the oppressed nations, involves the important 
principle of whether Marxism-Leninism and proletarian inter- 
nationalism are to be upheld or abandoned. 

According to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internation- 
alism, every socialist country which has achieved victory in 
its revolution must actively support and assist the liberation 
struggles of the oppressed nations. The socialist countries must 
become, base areas for supporting and developing the revolu- 
tion of the oppressed nations and peoples throughout the world, 
form the closest alliance with them and carry the proletarian 
world revolution through to completion. 

But the leaders of the CPSU virtually regard the victory of 
socialism in one country or several countries as the end of the 
proletarian world revolution. They want to subordinate the 
national liberation revolution to their general line of peaceful 
coexistence and to the national interests of their own country. 

When in 1925 Stalin fought the liquidationists, represented 
by the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, he pointed out that one 
of the dangerous characteristics of liquidationism was: 

. . . lack of confidence in the international proletarian 
revolution; lack of confidence in its victory; a sceptical at- 
titude towards the national-liberation movement in the 
colonies and dependent countries . . . failure to understand 
the elementary demand of internationalism, by virtue of 
which the victory of socialism in one country is not an end 
in itself, but a means of developing and supporting the 
revolution in other countries. 1 



1 J. V. Stalin, "Questions and Answers", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Mos- 
cow, 1954, Vol. VII, p. 169. 

207 



He added: 

That is the path of nationalism and degeneration, the path 
of the complete liquidation of the proletariat's international 
policy, for people afflicted with this disease regard our 
country not as a part of the whole that is called the world 
revolutionary movement, but as the beginning and the end 
of that movement, believing that the interests of all other 
countries should be sacrificed to the interests of our country. 1 

Stalin depicted the line of thinking of the liquidationists as 
follows: 

Support the liberation movement in China? But why? 
Wouldn't that be dangerous? Wouldn't it bring us into con- 
flict with other countries? Wouldn't it be better if we estab- 
lished "spheres of influence" in China in conjunction with 
other "advanced" powers and snatched something from 
China for our own benefit? That would be both useful and 
safe. . . . And so on and so forth. 2 

He concluded: 

Such is the new type of nationalist "frame of mind," 
which is trying to liquidate the foreign policy of the Octo- 
ber Revolution and is cultivating the elements of degenera- 
tion. 3 

The present leaders of the CPSU have gone farther than the 
old liquidationists. Priding themselves on their cleverness, 
they only take up what is "both useful and safe". Mortally 
afraid of being involved in conflict with the imperialist coun- 
tries, they have set their minds on opposing the national libera- 
tion movement. They are intoxicated with the idea of the two 
"super-powers" establishing spheres of influence throughout 
the world. 



1 Ibid., pp. 169-70. 
2 Ibid., p. 170. 
3 Ibid. 

208 



Stalin's criticism of the liquidationists is a fair description of 
the present leaders of the CPSU. Following in the footsteps of 
the liquidationists, they have liquidated the foreign policy of 
the October Revolution and taken the path of nationalism and 
degeneration. 

Stalin warned: 

... it is obvious that the first country to be victorious 
can retain the role of standard-bearer of the world revolu- 
tionary movement only on the basis of consistent interna- 
tionalism, only on the basis of the foreign policy of the Octo- 
ber Revolution, and that the path of least resistance and of 
nationalism in foreign policy is the path of the isolation and 
decay of the first country to be victorious. 1 

This warning by Stalin is of serious, practical significance for 
the present leaders of the CPSU. 



AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL-CHAUVINISM 

Similarly, according to proletarian internationalism, the 
proletariat and the Communists of the oppressor nations must 
actively support both the right of the oppressed nations to na- 
tional independence and their struggles for liberation. With 
the support of the oppressed nations, the proletariat of the op- 
pressor nations will be better able to win its revolution. 

Lenin hit the nail on the head when he said: 

The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries 
would actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against 
capital, the workers of Europe and America were not closely 
and completely united with the hundreds upon hundreds of 
millions of "colonial" slaves who are oppressed by capital. 2 



1 Ibid., p. 171. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Second Congress of the Communist International", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 

472-73. 

209 



However, some self-styled Marxist-Leninists have abandoned 
Marxism-Leninism on this very question of fundamental prin- 
ciple. The leaders of the French Communist Party are typical 
in this respect. 

Over a long period of time, the leaders of the CPF have 
abandoned the struggle against U.S. imperialism, refusing to 
put up a firm fight against U.S. imperialist control over and 
restrictions on France in the political, economic and military 
fields and surrendering the banner of French national strug- 
gle against the United States to people like de Gaulle; on the 
other hand, they have been using various devices and excuses 
to defend the colonial interests of the French imperialists, have 
refused to support, and indeed opposed, the national liberation 
movements in the French colonies, and particularly opposed 
national revolutionary wars; they have sunk into the quagmire 
of chauvinism. 

Lenin said, "Europeans often forget that colonial peoples are 
also nations, but to tolerate such 'forgetfulness' is to tolerate 
chauvinism." 1 Yet the leadership of the French Communist 
Party, represented by Comrade Thorez, has not only tolerated 
this "forgetfulness", but has openly regarded the peoples of the 
French colonies as "naturalized Frenchmen", 2 refused to 
acknowledge their right to national independence in dissocia- 
tion from France and publicly supported the policy of "national 
assimilation" pursued by the French imperialists. 

For the past ten years and more, the leaders of the French 
Communist Party have followed the colonial policy of the 
French imperialists and served as an appendage of French 
monopoly capital. In 1946, when the French monopoly capi- 
talist rulers played a neo-colonialist trick by proposing to form 
a French Union, they followed suit and proclaimed that "we 
have always envisaged the French Union as a 'free union of 



1 V. I. Lenin, "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Econo- 
mism' ", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 
1942, Vol. XIX, p. 250. 

2 Maurice Thorez, Speech in Algiers, February 1939. 

210 



free peoples' m and that "the French Union will permit the reg- 
ulation, on a new basis, of the relations between the people of 
France and the overseas peoples who have in the past been at- 
tached to France". 2 In 1958, when the French Union collapsed 
and the French Government proposed the establishment of a 
French Community to preserve its colonial system, the leaders 
of the CPF again followed suit and proclaimed, "We believe 
that the creation of a genuine community will be a positive 
event." 3 

Moreover, in opposing the demand of the people in the 
French colonies for national independence, the leaders of the 
CPF have even tried to intimidate them, saying that "any 
attempt to break away from the Union of France will only 
lead to the strengthening of imperialism; although independ- 
ence may be won, it will be temporary, nominal and false". 
They further openly declared: 

The question is whether this already unavoidable inde- 
pendence will be with France, or without France and against 
France. The interest of our country requires that this 
independence should be with France. 4 

On the question of Algeria, the chauvinist stand of the 
leaders of the CPF is all the more evident. They have recently 
tried to justify themselves by asserting that they had long rec- 
ognized the correct demand of the people of Algeria for 
freedom. But what are the facts? 

For a long time the leaders of the CPF refused to recognize 
Algeria's right to national independence; they followed the 



1 Leon Feix, Speech at the 15th Congress of the Communist 
Party of France, June 1959. 

2 Maurice Thorez, Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the New Term 
at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of France, October 10, 1955. 

3 Leon Feix, Speech at the 15th Congress of the Communist 
Party of France, June 1959. 

4 Raymond Barbe, "Black Africa in the Age of Guinea?", Democratic 
Nouvelle of the French Communist Party, No. 11, 1958. 

211 



French monopoly capitalists, crying that "Algeria is an 
inalienable part of France" 1 and that France "should be a great 
African power, now and in the future". 2 Thorez and others 
were most concerned about the fact that Algeria could provide 
France with "a million head of sheep" and large quantities of 
wheat yearly to solve her problem of "the shortage of meat" 
and "make up our deficit in grain". 3 

Just see! What feverish chauvinism on the part of the leaders 
of the CPF! Do they show an iota of proletarian internation- 
alism? Is there anything of the proletarian revolutionary in 
them? By taking this chauvinistic stand they have betrayed 
the fundamental interests of the international proletariat, the 
fundamental interests of the French proletariat and the true in- 
terests of the French nation. 



AGAFNST THE "THEORY OF RACISM" AND 
THE "THEORY OF THE YELLOW PERIL" 

Having used up all their wonder-working weapons for op- 
posing the national liberation movement, the leaders of the 
CPSU are now reduced to seeking help from racism, the most 
reactionary of all imperialist theories. They describe the 
correct stand of the CPC in resolutely supporting the national 
liberation movement as "creating racial and geographical 
barriers", "replacing the class approach with the racial ap- 
proach", and "playing upon the national and even racial 
prejudices of the Asian and African peoples". 

If Marxism-Leninism did not exist, perhaps such lies could 
deceive people. Unfortunately for the manufacturers of these 



1 Documents of the September 24, 1946 Session of the Constituent 
National Assembly of France, Appendix II, No. 1013. 

2 Florimond Bonte, Speech at the Constituent Assembly of France, 
1944. 

3 Maurice Thorez, Report to the Tenth Congress of the Communist 
Party of France, 1945. 

212 



lies, they live in the wrong age, for Marxism-Leninism has 
already found its way deep into people's hearts. As Stalin 
rightly pointed out, Leninism "broke down the wall between 
whites and blacks, between Europeans and Asiatics, between 
the 'civilised' and 'uncivilised' slaves of imperialism". 1 It is 
futile for the leaders of the CPSU to try and rebuild this wall 
of racism. 

In the last analysis, the national question in the contem- 
porary world is one of class struggle and anti-imperialist 
struggle. Today the workers, peasants, revolutionary intel- 
lectuals, anti-imperialist and patriotic bourgeois elements and 
other patriotic and anti-imperialist enlightened people of all 
races — white, black, yellow or brown — have formed a broad 
united front against the imperialists, headed by the United 
States, and their lackeys. This united front is expanding and 
growing stronger. The question here is not whether to side 
with the white people or the coloured people, but whether to 
side with the oppressed peoples and nations or with the hand- 
ful of imperialists and reactionaries. 

According to the Marxist-Leninist class stand, oppressed 
nations must draw a clear line of demarcation between them- 
selves and the imperialists and colonialists. To blur this line 
represents a chauvinist view serving imperialism and colo- 
nialism. 

Lenin said: 

. . . the central point in the Social-Democratic pro- 
gramme must be the distinction between oppressing and op- 
pressed nations, which is the essence of imperialism, which 
is falsely evaded by the social-chauvinists, and by Kautsky. 2 

By slandering the unity of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America in the anti-imperialist struggle as being "based on 

1 J. V. Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 144. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Na- 
tions to Self-Determination", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International 
Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. V, p. 284. 

213 



the geographical and racial principles", the leaders of the 
CPSU have obviously placed themselves in the position of 
the social-chauvinists and of Kautsky. 

When they peddle the "theory of racism", describing the 
national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America as one of the coloured against the white race, the 
leaders of the CPSU are clearly aiming at inciting racial hatred 
among the white people in Europe and North America, at 
diverting the people of the world from the struggle against 
imperialism and at turning the international working-class 
movement away from the struggle against modern revisionism. 

The leaders of the CPSU have raised a hue and cry about 
the "Yellow Peril" and the "imminent menace of Genghis 
Khan". This is really not worth refuting. We do not intend 
in this article to comment on the historical role of Genghis 
Khan or on the development of the Mongolian, Russian and 
Chinese nations and the process of their formation into states. 
We would only remind the leaders of the CPSU of their need 
to review their history lessons before manufacturing such 
tales. Genghis Khan was a Khan of Mongolia, and in his day 
both China and Russia were subjected to Mongolian aggres- 
sion. He invaded part of northwestern and northern China 
in 1215 and Russia in 1223. After his death, his successors 
subjugated Russia in 1240 and thirty-nine years later, in 1279, 
conquered the whole of China. 

Lu Hsun, the well-known Chinese writer, has a paragraph 
about Genghis Khan in an article he wrote in 1934. We in- 
clude it here for your reference as it may be useful to you. 

He wrote that, as a young man of twenty, 

I had been told that "our" Genghis Khan had conquered 
Europe and ushered in the most splendid period in "our" 
history. Not until I was twenty-five did I discover that this 
so-called most splendid period of "our" history was actually 
the time when the Mongolians conquered China and we 
became slaves. And not until last August, when browsing 

214 



through three books on Mongolian history, looking for his- 
tory stories, did I find out that the conquest of "Russia" by 
the Mongolians and their invasion of Hungary and Austria 
actually preceded their conquest of China, and that the 
Genghis Khan of that time was not yet our Khan. The 
Russians were enslaved before we were, and presumably it 
is they who ought to be able to say, "When our Genghis 
Khan conquered China, he ushered in the most splendid 
period of our history." 1 

Anyone with a little knowledge of modern world history 
knows that the "theory of the Yellow Peril" about which the 
CPSU leadership has been making such a noise is a legacy of 
the German Kaiser William II. Half a century ago, William 
II stated, "I am a believer in the Yellow Peril." 

The Kaiser's purpose in propagating the "theory of the 
Yellow Peril" was to carry the partition of China fur- 
ther, to invade Asia, to suppress revolution in Asia, to divert 
the attention of the European people from revolution and to use 
it as a smokescreen for his active preparations for the im- 
perialist world war and for his attempt to gain world hege- 
mony. 

When William II spread this "theory of the Yellow Peril", 
the European bourgeoisie was in deep decline and extremely 
reactionary, and democratic revolutions were sweeping 
through China, Turkey and Persia and affecting India, around 
the time of the 1905 Russian Revolution. That was the period, 
too, when Lenin made his famous remark about "backward 
Europe and advanced Asia". 

William II was a bigwig in his day. But in reality he proved 
to be only a snow man in the sun. In a very short time this 
reactionary chieftain vanished from the scene, together with 
the reactionary theory he invented. The great Lenin and his 
brilliant teachings live on for ever. 



1 Lu Hsun, Collected Works, Chin, ed., People's Literature Publishing 
House, Peking, 1958, Vol. VI, p. 109. 

215 



Fifty years have gone by; imperialism in Western Europe 
and North America has become still more moribund and reac- 
tionary, and its days are numbered. Meanwhile, the revolu- 
tionary storm raging over Asia, Africa and Latin America has 
grown many times stronger than in Lenin's time. It is hardly 
credible that today there are still people who wish to step into 
the shoes of William II. This is indeed a mockery of history. 



RESURRECTING THE OLD REVISIONISM 
IN A NEW GUISE 

The policy of the leadership of the CPSU on the national- 
colonial question is identical with the bankrupt policy of the 
revisionists of the Second International. The only difference 
is that the latter served the imperialists' old colonialism, while 
the modern revisionists serve the imperialists' neo-colonialism. 

The old revisionists sang to the tune of the old colonialists, 
and Khrushchev sings to the tune of the neo-colonialists. 

The heroes of the Second International, represented by 
Bernstein and Kautsky, were apologists for the old colonial 
rule of imperialism. They openly declared that colonial rule 
was progressive, that it brought a high civilization to the colo- 
nies and developed the productive forces there. They even 
asserted that the "abolition of the colonies would mean bar- 
barism". 1 

In this respect Khrushchov is somewhat different from the 
old revisionists. He is bold enough to denounce the old colo- 
nial system. 

How is it that Khrushchev is so bold? Because the im- 
perialists have changed their tune. 

After World War II, under the twin blows of the socialist 
revolution and the national liberation revolution, the im- 



1 Eduard David, Speech on the Colonial Question at the International 
Socialist Congress in Stuttgart, Internationaler Sozialistenkongress, 
Stuttgart, 1907, Verlag Buchhandlung Vorwarts, Berlin, 1907, p. 30. 

216 



perialists were forced to recognize that "if the West had at- 
tempted to perpetuate the status quo of colonialism, it would 
have made violent revolution inevitable and defeat inevi- 
table". 1 The old colonialist forms of rule "on the contrary, . . . 
are likely to prove 'running sores' which destroy both the 
economic and the moral vigour of a nation's life". 2 Thus 
it became necessary to change the form and practise neo- 
colonialism. 

Thus, too, Khrushchov singing to the tune of the neo- 
colonialists flaunts the "theory of the disappearance of colo- 
nialism" in order to cover up the new colonialism. What is 
more, he tries to induce the oppressed nations to embrace this 
new colonialism. He actively propagates the view that 
"peaceful coexistence" between the oppressed nations and 
civilized imperialism will make "the national economy grow 
rapidly" and bring about an "uplift of their productive forces", 
enable the home market in the oppressed countries to "become 
incomparably greater" and "furnish more raw materials, and 
various products and goods required by the economy of the 
industrially developed countries" 3 and, at the same time, will 
"considerably raise the living standard of the inhabitants in the 
highly developed capitalist countries". 4 

Nor has Khrushchov forgotten to collect certain worn-out 
weapons from the arsenal of the revisionists of the Second 
International. 

Here are some examples. 

The old revisionists opposed wars of national liberation and 
held that the national question "can be settled only through 



1 J. F. Dulles, War or Peace, Eng. ed., the MacMillan Company, New 
York, 1957, p. 76. 

2 John Strachey, The End of Empire, Eng. ed., London 1959, p. 194. 
3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 

23, 1960. 

4 "Liquidation of Colonialism — Command of the Times", Kommunist, 
Moscow, No. 2, 1961. 

217 



international agreements". 1 On this question, Khrushchov has 
taken over the line of the revisionists of the Second Interna- 
tional; he advocates a "quiet burial of the colonial system". 2 

The old revisionists attacked the revolutionary Marxists, 
hurling at them the slander that "Bolshevism is in essence a 
warlike type of socialism" 3 and that "the Communist Interna- 
tional harbours the illusion that the liberation of the workers 
can be achieved by means of the bayonets of the victorious 
Red Army and that a new world war is necessary for the 
world revolution". They also spread the story that this posi- 
tion had "created the greatest danger of a new world war". 4 
The language Khrushchov uses today to slander the Chinese 
Communist Party and other fraternal Marxist-Leninist Par- 
ties is exactly the language used by the old revisionists in 
slandering the Bolsheviks. It is hard to find any difference. 

It must be said that in serving the imperialists' neo- 
colonialism, Khrushchov is not a whit inferior to the old 
revisionists in their service of the imperialists' old colonialism. 

Lenin showed how the policy of imperialism caused the in- 
ternational workers' movement to split into two sections, the 
revolutionary and the opportunist. The revolutionary section 
sided with the oppressed nations and opposed the imperialists 
and colonialists. On the other hand, the opportunist section 
fed on crumbs from the spoils which the imperialists and colo- 
nialists squeezed out of the people of the colonies and semi- 
colonies. It sided with the imperialists and colonialists and 
opposed the revolution of the oppressed nations for liberation. 



1 "Resolution on the Territorial Question", adopted by the International 
Socialist Conference in Berne, 1919, Material on the First and Second 
Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 380. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 
23, 1960. 

3 Otto Bauer, Speech on the Oriental Question at the International 
Socialist Congress in Marseilles, 1925, Material on the First and Second 
Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, pp. 468. 

4 "Resolution on the Oriental Question", adopted by the International 
Socialist Congress in Marseilles, 1925, Material on the First and Second 
Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 474. 

218 



The same kind of division between revolutionaries and op- 
portunists in the international working-class movement as 
that described by Lenin is now taking shape not only in the 
working-class movement in capitalist countries but also in 
socialist countries where the proletariat wields state power. 

The experience of history shows that if the national libera- 
tion movement is to achieve complete victory it must form a 
solid alliance with the revolutionary working-class movement, 
draw a clear line of demarcation between itself and the 
revisionists who serve the imperialists and colonialists, and 
firmly eradicate their influence. 

The experience of history shows that if the working-class 
movement of the capitalist countries in Western Europe and 
North America is to achieve complete victory, it must form a 
close alliance with the national liberation movement in Asia, 
Africa and Latin America, draw a clear line of demarcation 
between itself and the revisionists, and firmly eradicate their 
influence. 

The revisionists are agents of imperialism who have hidden 
themselves among the ranks of the international working-class 
movement. Lenin said, ". . . the fight against imperialism is 
a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with 
the fight against opportunism." 1 Thus it is clear that the 
present fight against imperialism and old and new colonialism 
must be linked closely with the fight against the apologists of 
neo-colonialism. 

However hard the imperialists disguise their intentions and 
bestir themselves, however hard their apologists whitewash 
and help neo-colonialism, imperialism and colonialism cannot 
escape their doom. The victory of the national liberation 
revolution is irresistible. Sooner or later the apologists of neo- 
colonialism will go bankrupt. 

Workers of the world and the oppressed nations, unite! 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 560. 

219 



TWO DIFFERENT LINES 

ON THE QUESTION OF 

WAR AND PEACE 

Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
(People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(November 19, 1964) 



THE whole world is discussing the question of war and 
peace. 

The criminal system of imperialism has brought upon the 
people of the world numerous wars, including two disastrous 
world wars. Wars launched by imperialism have caused the 
people heavy suffering, but have also educated them. 

Since World War II, people everywhere have been vig- 
orously demanding world peace. More and more people have 
come to understand that to defend world peace it is imperative 
to wage struggles against the imperialist policies of aggres- 
sion and war. 

Marxist-Leninists throughout the world are duty bound to 
treasure the peace sentiments of the people and to stand in 
the forefront of the struggle for world peace. They are duty 
bound to struggle against the imperialists' policies of aggres- 
sion and war, to expose their deceptions and defeat their 
plans for war. They are duty bound to educate the people, 
raise their political consciousness and guide the struggle for 
world peace in the proper direction. 

In contrast to the Marxist-Leninists, the modern revisionists 
help the imperialists to deceive the people, divert the people's 
attention, weaken and undermine their struggle against im- 
perialism and cover up the imperialists' plans for a new world 
war, thus meeting the needs of imperialist policy. 

The Marxist-Leninist line on the question of war and peace 
is diametrically opposed to the revisionist line. 

The Marxist-Leninist line is the correct line conducive to 
the winning of world peace. It is the line consistently upheld 
by all Marxist-Leninist Parties, including the Communist 
Party of China, and by all Marxist-Leninists. 

223 



The revisionist line is a wrong line which serves to increase 
the danger of a new war. It is the line gradually developed 
by the leaders of the CPSU since its 20th Congress. 

On the question of war and peace many lies slandering the 
Chinese Communists have been fabricated in the Open Letter 
of the Central Committee of the CPSU and in numerous state- 
ments by the leaders of the CPSU, but these cannot conceal 
the essence of the differences. 

In what follows we shall analyse the main differences be- 
tween the Marxist-Leninist and the modern revisionist lines 
on the question of war and peace. 



THE LESSONS OF HISTORY 

Ever since capitalism evolved into imperialism, the question 
of war and peace has been a vital one in the struggle between 
Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. 

Imperialism is the source of wars in modern times. The 
imperialists alternately use a deceptive policy of peace and a 
policy of war. They often cover their crimes of aggression 
and their preparations for a new war with lies about peace. 

Lenin and Stalin tirelessly called upon the people of all 
countries to combat the peace frauds of the imperialists. 

Lenin said that the imperialist governments "pay lip service 
to peace and justice, but in fact wage annexationist and pred- 
atory wars". 1 

Stalin said that the imperialists "have only one aim in resort- 
ing to pacifism: to dupe the masses with high-sounding phrases 
about peace in order to prepare for a new war". 2 He also said: 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Report on Peace", Delivered at the Second All-Russian 
Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p- 332. 

2 J. V. Stalin, "Concerning the International Situation", Works, Eng. 
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 297. 

224 



Many think that imperialist pacifism is an instrument of 
peace. That is absolutely wrong. Imperialist pacifism is 
an instrument for the preparation of war and for disguising 
this preparation by hypocritical talk of peace. Without this 
pacifism and its instrument, the League of Nations, prep- 
aration for war in the conditions of today would be im- 
possible. 1 

In contrast to Lenin and Stalin, the revisionists of the Sec- 
ond International, who were renegades from the working 
class, helped the imperialists to deceive the people and be- 
came their accomplices in unleashing the two World Wars. 

Before World War I, the revisionists represented by Bern- 
stein and Kautsky endeavoured by hypocritical talk about 
peace to paralyse the revolutionary fighting will of the people 
and cover up the imperialist plans for a world war. 

As World War I was breaking out, the old revisionists 
speedily shed their peace masks, sided with their respective 
imperialist governments, supported the imperialist war for 
the redivision of the world, voted for military appropriations 
in parliament, and incited the working class of their own 
countries to plunge into the war and slaughter their class 
brothers in other countries under the hypocritical slogan of 
"defending the motherland". 

When the imperialists needed an armistice in their own in- 
terests, the revisionists typified by Kautsky tried to poison 
people's minds and to oppose revolution by such glib talk as 
"nothing would make me happier than a conciliatory peace 
based on the principle, 'Live and let live' ". 2 

After World War I, the renegade Kautsky and his succes- 
sors became still more brazen trumpeters of the imperialists' 
peace frauds. 

U. V. Stalin, "Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)", 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 209. 
2 Karl Kautsky, National Problems, Russ. ed., Petrograd, 1918, p. 88. 

225 



The revisionists of the Second International spread a pack 
of lies on the question of war and peace. 

1. They prettified imperialism and turned the minds of 
the people away from their struggles. Kautsky said: 

. . . the danger to world peace from imperialism is only 
slight. The greater danger appears to come from the na- 
tional strivings in the East and from the various dictator- 
ships. 1 

Thus people were asked to believe that the source of war 
was not imperialism but the oppressed nations of the East and 
the Soviet state, the great bulwark of peace. 

2. They helped the imperialists cover up the danger of a 
new war and blunted the fighting will of the people. Kautsky 
said in 1928, "If today you keep on talking loudly about the 
dangers of imperialist war, you are relying on a traditional 
formula and not on present-day considerations." 2 Old revi- 
sionists of his brand described those believing in the inevita- 
bility of imperialist wars as "committed to a fatalistic concep- 
tion of history". 3 

3. They intimidated the people with the notion that war 
would destroy mankind. Kautsky said: 

. . . the next war will not only bring want and misery, 
but will basically put an end to civilisation and, at least 
in Europe, will leave behind nothing but smoking ruins and 
putrefying corpses. 4 

These old revisionists said: 



1 Karl Kautsky, The Question of Defence and Social-Democracy, 
Ger. ed., Berlin, 1928, p. 37. 
2 Ibid., p. 28. 

3 Hugo Haase, Speech on the Question of Imperialism at the Con- 
gress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Chemnitz, 1912, pub- 
lished in the Handbook of the Congress of the Social-Democratic Party 
in 1910-1913, Ger. ed., Munich, Vol. II, p. 234. 

4 Karl Kautsky, Preface to War and Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 
1932, p. xii. 

226 



The last war brought the entire world to the brink of 
the precipice; the next one would destroy it completely. 
The mere preparation for a new war would ruin the world. 1 

4. They made no distinction between just and unjust wars 
and forbade revolution. Kautsky said in 1914: 

... in present-day conditions, there is no such thing as 
a war which is not a misfortune for nations in general and 
for the proletariat in particular. What we discussed was 
the means by which we could prevent a threatening war, 
and not which wars are useful and which harmful. 2 

He also said: 

The yearning for perpetual peace increasingly inspires 
the majority of cultured nations. It temporarily pushes 
the essentially great problem of our times into the 
background. . . . 3 

5. They propagated the theory that weapons decide 
everything and they opposed revolutionary armed struggle. 
Kautsky said: 

As has been often stated, one of the reasons why the 
coming revolutionary struggles will more rarely be fought 
out by military means lies in the colossal superiority in 
armaments of the armies of modern states over the arms 
which are at the disposal of "civilians" and which usually 
render any resistance on the part of the latter hopeless 
from the very outset. 4 



1 "Resolution on the League of Nations", adopted by the International 
Socialist Conference in Berne, 1919, Material on the First and Second 
Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 378. 

2 Karl Kautsky, "Social-Democracy in War", Die Neue Zeit, October 
2, 1914. 

3 Karl Kautsky, Preface to War and Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1932, 
p. xii. 

4 Karl Kautsky, "A Catechism of Social-Democracy", Die Neue Zeit, 
December 13, 1893. 

227 



6. They spread the absurd theory that world peace can be 
safeguarded and equality of nations achieved through disar- 
mament. Bernstein said: 

Peace on earth and good will to all men! We should not 
pause or rest and must attend to the unhindered advance 
of society towards prosperity in the interests of all, towards 
equality of rights among nations through international 
agreement and disarmament. 1 

7. They spread the fallacy that the money saved from 
disarmament can be used to assist backward countries. 
Kautsky said: 

. . . the lighter the burden of military expenditures in 
Western Europe, the greater the means available for build- 
ing railways in China, Persia, Turkey, South America, etc., 
and these public works are a far more effective means of 
promoting industrial development than the building of 
dreadnoughts. 2 

8. They submitted schemes for the "peace strategy" of 
the imperialists. Kautsky said: 

The nations of civilised Europe (and likewise the Ameri- 
cans) can maintain peace in the Near and Far East more 
effectively through their economic and intellectual re- 
sources than through ironclads and planes. 3 

9. They extolled the League of Nations which was con- 
trolled by the imperialists. Kautsky said: 

The mere existence of the League of Nations is itself 
already a great achievement for the cause of peace. It rep- 

1 Eduard Bernstein, Speech on the Question of Disarmament at the 
Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Chemnitz, 1912, 
published in the Handbook of the Congress of the Social-Democratic 
Party in 1910-1913, Ger. ed., Munich, Vol. II, p. 9. 

2 Karl Kautsky, "Once More on Disarmament", Die Neue Zeit, Sep- 
tember 6, 1912. 

3 Karl Kautsky, The Question of Defence and Social-Democracy, 
Ger. ed., Berlin, 1928, p. 32. 

228 



resents a lever for the preservation of peace such as no 
other institution can offer. 1 

10. They spread the illusion that reliance could be placed 
on U.S. imperialism to defend world peace. Kautsky said: 

Today the United States is the strongest power in the 
world and will make the League of Nations irresistible as 
soon as it works inside it or with it to prevent war. 2 

Lenin ruthlessly exposed the ugly features of Kautsky and 
his ilk. He pointed out that the pacifist phrases of the re- 
visionists of the Second International served only "as a means 
of consoling the people, as a means of helping the govern- 
ments to keep the masses in submission in order to continue 
the imperialist slaughter!" 3 

Stalin pointed out: 

And the most important thing in all this is that Social- 
Democracy is the main channel of imperialist pacifism 
within the working class — consequently, it is capitalism's 
main support among the working class in preparing for new 
wars and intervention. 4 

Even a cursory comparison of Comrade Khrushchov's 
statements on the question of war and peace with those of 
Bernstein, Kautsky and others shows that there is nothing new 
in his views, which are a mere reproduction of the revisionism 
of the Second International. 

On the question of war and peace, which has a vital bear- 
ing on the destiny of mankind, Khrushchov is following in 



l Ibid., p. 25. 

2 Karl Kautsky, Socialists and War, Ger. ed., Prague, 1937, p. 639. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "To the Workers Who Support the Struggle Against 
the War and Against the Socialists Who Have Deserted to the Side 
of Their Governments", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Pub- 
lishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, p. 435. 

4 J. V. Stalin, "Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U. (B.)", 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 210. 

229 



the footsteps of Bernstein and Kautsky. As history shows, 
this is a road extremely dangerous to world peace. 

In order effectively to defend world peace and prevent a 
new world war, Marxist-Leninists and peace-loving people 
all over the world must reject and oppose Khrushchov's er- 
roneous line. 



THE GREATEST FRAUD 

There is no bigger lie than the designation of the arch enemy 
of world peace as a peace-loving angel. 

Since World War II, U.S. imperialism, stepping into the 
shoes of the German, Italian and Japanese fascists, has been 
endeavouring to set up a vast world empire such as has never 
been known before. The "global strategy" of U.S. imperial- 
ism has been to grab and dominate the intermediate zone 
lying between the United States and the socialist camp, put 
down the revolutions of the oppressed peoples and nations, 
proceed to destroy the socialist countries, and thus to dominate 
the whole world. 

In the eighteen years since the end of World War II, in 
order to realize its ambition of world domination, U.S. im- 
perialism has been carrying on aggressive wars or counter- 
revolutionary aimed interventions in various parts of the 
world and has been actively preparing for a new world war. 

It is obvious that imperialism remains the source of modern 
wars and that U.S. imperialism is the main force of aggres- 
sion and war in the contemporary world. This has been 
clearly affirmed in both the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 
Statement. 

Yet the leaders of the CPSU hold that the chief representa- 
tives of U.S. imperialism love peace. They say that a 
"reasonable" group has emerged capable of soberly assessing 
the situation. And Eisenhower and Kennedy are representa- 
tives of this "reasonable" group. 

230 



Khrushchov praised Eisenhower as one who "enjoys the 
absolute confidence of his people", who "has a sincere desire 
for peace" and who "also worries about ensuring peace just 
as we do". 

Now Khrushchov praises Kennedy as even better qualified 
to shoulder the responsibility of preserving world peace than 
was Eisenhower. He showed "solicitude for the preservation 
of peace", 1 and it is reasonable to expect him to "create re- 
liable conditions for a peaceful life and creative labour on 
earth". 2 

Khrushchov works as hard as the revisionists of the Second 
International at telling lies about imperialism and prettify- 
ing it. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
asks those who do not believe in these lies: "Do they really 
think that all bourgeois governments, in all their doings, 
lack reason?" 

Obviously, the leaders of the CPSU ignore the ABC of 
Marxism-Leninism. In a class society there is no reason that 
can transcend class. The proletariat has proletarian reason 
and the bourgeoisie bourgeois reason. Reason connotes that 
one must be good at formulating policies in the fundamental 
interests of one's own class and at taking actions according to 
one's basic class stand. The reason of Kennedy and his like 
lies in acting according to the fundamental interests of U.S. 
monopoly capital, and it is imperialist reason. 

At a time when the international balance of class forces 
is becoming increasingly unfavourable to imperialism and the 
U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war are meeting 
with constant setbacks, the U.S. imperialists have to disguise 
themselves more frequently under the cloak of peace. 

It is true that Kennedy is rather clever at spinning words 
about peace and employing peace tactics. But as with his 

'N. S. Khrushchov, Letter to J. F. Kennedy, October 27, 1962. 
2 New Year Message of Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. 
Brezhnev to J. F. Kennedy, Izvestia, January 3, 1963. 

231 



war policy, Kennedy's deceptive peace policy serves the 
"global strategy" of U.S. imperialism. 

Kennedy's "strategy of peace" aims at unifying the whole 
world into the "world community of free nations" rooted in 
U.S. imperialist "law and justice". 

The main points of Kennedy's "strategy of peace" are: 

To promote U.S. neo-colonialism in Asia, Africa and 
Latin America by peaceful means; 

To penetrate and dominate other imperialist and capital- 
ist countries by peaceful means; 

To encourage by peaceful means the socialist countries 
to take the Yugoslav road of "peaceful evolution"; 

To weaken and undermine by peaceful means the struggle 
of the people of the world against imperialism. 

In his recent speech at the United Nations General As- 
sembly, Kennedy arrogantly announced the following 
conditions for peace between the United States and the Soviet 
Union: 

(1) The German Democratic Republic must be incorporat- 
ed into West Germany. 

(2) Socialist Cuba must not be allowed to exist. 

(3) The socialist countries in Eastern Europe must be 
given "free choice", by which he means that capitalism must 
be restored in these countries. 

(4) The socialist countries must not support the revolu- 
tionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. 

To attain their aims by "peaceful means" wherever possible 
has been a customary tactic of imperialists and colonialists. 

Reactionary classes always rely on two tactics to maintain 
their rule and to carry out foreign aggrandizement. One is 
the tactic of priest-like deception, the other that of butcher- 
like suppression. Imperialism always employs its deceptive 
policy of peace and its policy of war to reinforce each other, 
and they are complementary. The reason of Kennedy, who 

232 



is the representative of U.S. monopoly capital, can express 
itself only in a more cunning use of these two tactics. 

Violence is always the main tactic of reactionary ruling 
classes. Priest-like deception plays only a supplementary 
role. Imperialists always rely on positions of strength to 
carve out their spheres of influence. Kennedy has made this 
point very clear. He said, "In the end, the only way to 
maintain the peace is to be prepared in the final extreme to 
fight for our country — and to mean it." 1 Since Kennedy 
took office, he has followed the "strategy of flexible response", 
which requires the speedy building of "versatile military 
forces" and the strengthening of "all-round power" so that 
the United States will be able to fight any kind of war it 
pleases, whether a general war or a limited war, whether a 
nuclear war or a conventional war, and whether a large war or 
a small war. This mad plan of Kennedy's has pushed U.S. 
arms expansion and war preparations to an unprecedented 
peak. Let us look at the following facts published by official 
U.S. sources: 

1. The military expenditures of the U.S. Government 
have increased from 46,700 million dollars in the fiscal year 
1960 to an estimated 60,000 million dollars in the fiscal year 
1964, the highest total ever in peace time and greater than 
during the Korean War. 

2. Kennedy recently declared that in the past two years 
and more there has been a 100 per cent increase in the 
number of nuclear weapons of the U.S. strategic alert forces 
and a 45 per cent increase in the number of combat-ready 
army divisions, the procurement of airlift aircraft has been 
increased by 175 per cent and there has been an increase by 
nearly five times in the "special guerrilla and counter-insur- 
gency forces". 2 



1 J. F. Kennedy, Speech at the Eighth Annual Veteran's Day Cere- 
mony, November 11, 1961. 

2 J. F. Kennedy, Speech at a Democratic Party Fund-Raising Dinner, 
October 30, 1963. 

233 



3. The U.S. Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff has 
mapped out plans for nuclear war against the Soviet Union 
and other socialist countries. Robert McNamara, the U.S. 
Secretary of Defence, declared at the beginning of this year: 

... we have provided, throughout the period under 
consideration, a capability to destroy virtually all of the 
"soft-" [above-ground] and "semi-hard" [semi-protected] 
military targets in the Soviet Union and a large number 
of their fully hardened missile sites, with an additional 
capability in the form of a protected force to be employed 
or held in reserve for use against urban and industrial 
areas. 1 

The United States has strengthened its network of nuclear 
missile bases directed against the socialist camp and has 
greatly strengthened the disposition of its missile-equipped 
nuclear submarines abroad. 

At the same time, the troops of the NATO bloc under U.S. 
command have pushed eastward this year and approached 
the borders of the German Democratic Republic and Czecho- 
slovakia. 

4. The Kennedy Administration has reinforced its military 
dispositions in Asia, Latin America and Africa and made 
great efforts to expand the "special forces" of its land, sea 
and air services in order to cope with the people's revolu- 
tionary movement in those areas. The United States has 
turned southern Viet Nam into a proving ground for "special 
warfare" and increased its troops there to more than 16,000. 

5. It has strengthened its war commands. It has set up 
a "U.S. Strike Command" which controls a combined land 
and air force maintaining high combat readiness in peace 
time, so that it can be readily sent to any place in the world 
to provoke wars. It has also set up national military command 
centres both above and below ground, and organized an Emer- 

1 R. S. McNamara, Statement Before the Armed Services Committee 
of the U.S. House of Representatives, January 30, 1963. 

234 



gency Airborne Command Post operating from aircraft and 
an Emergency Sea Command Post operating from warships. 

These facts demonstrate that the U.S. imperialists are the 
wildest militarists of modern times, the wildest plotters of a 
new world war, and the most ferocious enemy of world peace. 

It is thus clear that the U.S. imperialists have not become 
beautiful angels in spite of Khrushchov's bible-reading and 
psalm-singing; they have not turned into compassionate 
Buddhas in spite of Khrushchov's prayers and incense-burn- 
ing. However hard Khrushchov tries to serve the U.S. im- 
perialists, they show not the slightest appreciation. They 
continue to expose their own peace camouflage by fresh and 
numerous activities of aggression and war, and thus they 
continue to slap Khrushchov in the face and reveal the 
bankruptcy of his ridiculous theories prettifying imperialism. 
The lot of the willing apologists of U.S. imperialism is indeed 
a sorry one. 



THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
PREVENTING A NEW WORLD WAR 

It is a fact that the imperialists headed by the United 
States are actively preparing a new world war and that the 
danger of such a war does exist. We should make this fact 
clear to the people. 

But can a new world war be prevented? 

The views of the Chinese Communists on this question 
have always been quite explicit. 

After the conclusion of World War II, Comrade Mao Tse- 
tung scientifically analysed the post-war international situa- 
tion and advanced the view that a new world war can be 
prevented. 

Back in 1946, in his well-known talk with the American 
correspondent Anna Louise Strong, he said: 

235 



But the fact that the U.S. reactionaries are now trum- 
peting so loudly about a U.S. -Soviet war and creating a 
foul atmosphere, so soon after the end of World War II, 
compels us to take a look at their real aims. It turns out 
that under the cover of anti- Soviet slogans they are fran- 
tically attacking the workers and democratic circles in the 
United States and turning all the countries which are the 
targets of U.S. external expansion into U.S. dependencies. 
I think the American people and the peoples of all coun- 
tries menaced by U.S. aggression should unite and struggle 
against the attacks of the U.S. reactionaries and their run- 
ning dogs in these countries. Only by victory in this strug- 
gle can a third world war be avoided; otherwise it is 
unavoidable. 1 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung's remarks were directed against a 
pessimistic appraisal of the international situation at the 
time The imperialists headed by the United States, together 
with the reactionaries in various countries, were daily in- 
tensifying their anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and anti-popular 
activities and trumpeting that "war between the United 
States and the Soviet Union is inevitable" and that "the out- 
break of a third world war is inevitable". The Chiang, Kai-shek 
reactionaries gave this great publicity in order to intimidate 
the Chinese people. Frightened by such blackmail, some 
comrades became faint-hearted in the face of the armed 
attacks launched by the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries with 
U.S. imperialist support and dared not firmly oppose the 
counter-revolutionary war with a revolutionary war. Comrade 
Mao Tse-tung held different views. He pointed out that a 
new world war could be prevented provided resolute and 
effective struggles were waged against world reaction. 

His scientific proposition was confirmed by the great vic- 
tory of the Chinese Revolution. 



•Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, 
p. 100. 

236 



The victory of the Chinese Revolution brought about a 
tremendous change in the international balance of class forces. 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out in June 1950: 

The menace of war by the imperialist camp still exists 
the possibility of a third world war still exists. But the 
forces thwarting the danger of war and preventing a third 
world war are rapidly developing, and the political con- 
sciousness of the broad masses of the people of the world 
is rising. A new world war can be prevented provided 
the Communist Parties of the world keep on uniting and 
strengthening all the forces of peace and democracy that 
can be united. 1 

In November 1957, at the meeting of fraternal Parties, 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung made a detailed analysis of the 
changes in international relations since the end of World 
War II and showed that the international situation had reached 
a new turning point. He vividly depicted the situation with 
a metaphor from a classical Chinese novel — "The east wind 
prevails over the west wind". He said: 

It is characteristic of the situation today, I believe, that 
the East wind is prevailing over the West wind. That is 
to say, the forces of socialism are overwhelmingly superior 
to the forces of imperialism. 2 

He arrived at this conclusion by an analysis of international 
class relations. He explicitly placed on the side of "the East 
wind" the socialist camp, the international working class, the 
Communist Parties, the oppressed peoples and nations and 
the peace-loving people and countries, while confining "the 
West wind" to the war forces of imperialism and reaction. 



1 Mao Tse-tung, "Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in 
the Financial and Economic Situation in China", Renmin Ribao, June 
13, 1950. 

2 Comrade Mao Tse-tung on "Imperialism and All Reactionaries Are 
Paper Tigers'", Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 35. 

237 



The political meaning Of this metaphor is very lucid and 
definite. The fact that the leaders of the CPSU and their 
followers are twisting this metaphor into a geographical or 
ethnical or meteorological concept only shows that they want 
to squeeze themselves into the ranks of the "West" in order 
to please the imperialists and to stir up chauvinism in Europe 
and North America. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung's main aim in stating that "the 
East wind prevails over the West wind" was to point to the 
growing possibility that a new world war could be prevented 
and that the socialist countries would be able to carry on 
their construction in a peaceful environment. 

These propositions of Comrade Mao Tse-tung's have been 
and are the consistent views of the Communist Party of China. 

It is thus clear that the leaders of the CPSU are deliberately 
concocting a lie in alleging that the Chinese Communist Party 
does "not believe in the possibility of preventing a new world 
war." 1 

Again, it is clear that the thesis on the possibility of pre- 
venting a third world war was advanced by Marxist-Leninists 
long ago; it was not first put forward at the 20th Congress 
of the CPSU, nor is it Khrushchov's "creation". 

Is it then true that Khrushchov has created nothing at all? 
No. He has created something. Unfortunately, these "crea- 
tions" are by no means Marxist-Leninist, but revisionist. 

First, Khrushchev has wilfully interpreted the possibility 
of preventing a new world war as the only possibility, holding 
that there is no possibility of a new world war. 

Marxist-Leninists hold that while pointing to the possibil- 
ity of preventing a new world war, we must also call attention 
to the possibility that imperialism may unleash a world war. 
Only by pointing to both possibilities, pursuing correct policies 
and preparing for both eventualities can we effectively 



1 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists 
of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

238 



mobilize the masses to wage struggles in defence of world 
peace. Only thus will the socialist countries and people and 
other peace-loving countries and people not be caught un- 
awares and utterly unprepared should imperialism force a 
world war on the people of the world. 

However, Khrushchov and others are against exposing the 
danger of a new war which the imperialists are plotting. 
According to them, imperialism has actually become peace- 
loving. This is helping the imperialists to lull the masses 
and sap their fighting will so that they will lose their vigi- 
lance against the danger of the new war the imperialists are 
plotting. 

Second, Khrushchov has wilfully interpreted the possibil- 
ity of preventing a new world war as the possibility of 
preventing all wars, holding that the Leninist axiom that 
war is inevitable so long as imperialism exists is outmoded. 

The possibility of preventing a new world war is one thing; 
the possibility of preventing all wars, including revolutionary 
wars, is another. And it is completely wrong to confuse the 
two. 

There is soil for wars so long as imperialism and the system 
of exploitation of man by man exist. This is an objective law 
discovered by Lenin after abundant scientific study. 

Stalin said in 1952 after indicating the possibility of pre- 
venting a new world war, "To eliminate the inevitability of 
war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism." 1 

Lenin and Stalin are right and Khrushchov is wrong. 

History shows that while the imperialists have succeeded 
in launching two world wars, they have waged numerous 
wars of other kinds. Since World War II, by their policies 
of aggression and war the imperialists headed by the United 
States have brought about ceaseless local wars and armed 
conflicts of every description in many places, and especially 
in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 



'J. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Eng. 
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, p. 41. 

239 



It is clear that national liberation wars are inevitable when 
the imperialists, and the U.S. imperialists in particular, send 
their troops or use their lackeys to carry out sanguinary sup- 
pression of the oppressed nations and countries fighting for 
or upholding national independence. 

Lenin said: 

To deny all possibility of national wars under imperial- 
ism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, 
and in practice is tantamount to European chauvinism. 1 

It is equally clear that revolutionary civil wars are inevi- 
table when the bourgeois reactionaries suppress the people 
in their oven countries by force of arms. 

Lenin said: 

. . . civil wars are also wars. Whoever recognizes the 
class struggle cannot fail to recognize civil wars, which in 
every class society are the natural, and under certain con- 
ditions, inevitable continuation, development and intensifi- 
cation of the class struggle. All the great revolutions 
prove this. To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, 
would mean sinking into extreme opportunism and renounc- 
ing the socialist revolution. 2 

Nearly all the great revolutions in history were made 
through revolutionary wars. The American War of Indepen- 
dence and Civil War are cases in point. The French Revolu- 
tion is another example. The Russian Revolution and the Chi- 
nese Revolution are of course examples too. The revolutions 
in Viet Nam, Cuba, Algeria, etc. are also well-known examples. 

In 1871, summing up the lessons of the Paris Commune in 
his speech commemorating the seventh anniversary of the 
founding of the First International, Marx mentioned the con- 
ditions for the elimination of class domination and class op- 
pression. He said: 

1 V. I. Lenin, "The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571. 
2 Ibid. 

240 



. . . before such a change can be consummated, a dictator- 
ship of the proletariat is necessary, and its first premiss is 
an army of the proletariat. The working class must win the 
right to its emancipation on the battlefield. 1 

In accordance with Marxist-Leninist theory, Comrade Mao 
Tse-tung advanced the celebrated thesis that "political power 
grows out of the barrel of a gun", when discussing the lessons 
of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions in 1938. This thesis, 
too, has now become a target of attack by the leaders of the 
CPSU. They say it is evidence of China's being "warlike". 

Respected friends, slanders like yours were refuted by Com- 
rade Mao Tse-tung as far back as twenty-five years ago: 

According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is 
the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to 
seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some 
people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war". 
Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary 
war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. 2 

What is wrong with Comrade Mao Tse-tung 's remark? Only 
those who reject all the historical experience gained in the 
bourgeois and proletarian revolutions over the last few hun- 
dred years would reject this view of his. 

With their guns, the Chinese people have created socialist 
political power. All except imperialists and their lackeys can 
readily understand that this is a fine thing and that it is an 
important factor in safeguarding world peace and preventing 
a third world war. 

Marxist-Leninists never conceal their views. We whole- 
heartedly support every people's revolutionary war. As Lenin 
said of such revolutionary war, "Of all the wars known in 

1 Works of Marx and Engels, Ger. ed., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, 
Vol. XVII, p. 433. 

2 Mao Tse-tung, "Problems of War and Strategy", Selected Military 
Writings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 273. 

241 



history it is the only lawful, rightful, just, and truly great 
war." 1 If we are accused of being warlike simply because of 
this, it only goes to prove that we genuinely side with the 
oppressed peoples and nations and are true Marxist-Leninists. 

The imperialists and revisionists always denounced the 
Bolsheviks and revolutionary leaders like Lenin and Stalin 
as being "warlike". The very fact that today we are likewise 
abused by imperialists and revisionists shows that we have 
been holding aloft the revolutionary banner of Marxism- 
Leninism. 

Khrushchov and others vigorously propagate the view that 
all wars can be prevented and "a world without weapons, with- 
out armed forces and without wars" can be brought into being 
while imperialism still exists. This is nothing but Kautsky's 
theory of "ultra-imperialism" which has long been bankrupt. 
Their purpose is all too clear; it is to make the people believe 
that permanent peace can be realized under imperialism and 
thereby to abolish revolution and national liberation wars and 
revolutionary civil wars against imperialism and its lackeys, 
and in fact to help the imperialists in their preparations for 
a new war. 



NUCLEAR FETISHISM AND NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL ARE 

THE THEORETICAL BASIS AND GUIDING POLICY 

OF MODERN REVISIONISM 

The heart of the theory of the leaders of the CPSU on war 
and peace is their thesis that the emergence of nuclear weap- 
ons has changed everything including the laws of class struggle. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
says, "The nuclear and rocket weapons created in the middle 
of this century have changed former conceptions of war." In 
what way were they changed? 



1 V. I. Lenin. "Revolutionary Days", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1969, Vol. VIII, p. 107. 

242 



The leaders of the CPSU hold that with the appearance of 
nuclear weapons there is no longer any difference between 
just and unjust wars. They say that "the atomic bomb does 
not draw class distinctions" and that "the atomic bomb does 
not distinguish between imperialists and working people, it 
strikes at areas, so that millions of workers would be killed 
for every monopolist destroyed". 1 

They hold that with the appearance of nuclear weapons 
the oppressed peoples and nations must abandon revolution 
and refrain from waging just popular revolutionary wars and 
wars of national liberation, or else such wars would lead to 
the destruction of mankind. They say, ". . . any small 'local 
war' might spark off the conflagration of a world war" and 
"Today, any sort of war, though it may break out as an ordi- 
nary non-nuclear war, is likely to develop into a destructive 
nuclear-missile conflagration." 2 Thus, "We will destroy our 
Noah's Ark — the globe". 

The leaders of the CPSU hold that the socialist countries 
must not resist but must yield to imperialist nuclear blackmail 
and war threats. Khrushchov said: 

There can be no doubt that a world nuclear war, if started 
by the imperialist maniacs, would inevitably result in the 
downfall of the capitalist system, a system breeding wars. 
But would the socialist countries and the cause of socialism 
all over the world benefit from a world nuclear disaster? 
Only people who deliberately shut their eyes to the facts 
can think so. As regards Marxist-Leninists, they cannot 
propose to establish a Communist civilisation on the ruins 
of centres of world culture, on land laid waste and contami- 
nated by nuclear fall-out. We need hardly add that in the 
case of many peoples, the question of socialism would be 



1 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of 
the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Radio and Television Speech, June 15, 1961. 

243 



eliminated altogether because they would have disappeared 
bodily from our planet. 1 

In short, according to the leaders of the CPSU, with the 
emergence of nuclear weapons, the contradiction between the 
socialist and the imperialist camps, the contradiction between 
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries, 
and the contradiction between the oppressed nations and im- 
perialism have all disappeared. The world no longer has any 
class contradictions. They regard the contradictions in the 
contemporary world as boiling down to a single contradiction, 
that is, their fictitious contradiction between the so-called com- 
mon survival of imperialism and the oppressed classes and 
nations on the one hand and their total destruction on the 
other. 

As far as the leaders of the CPSU are concerned, Marxism- 
Leninism, the Declaration and the Statement, and socialism 
and communism have all been cast to the winds. 

How frankly Pravda puts it! "What is the use of principles 
if one's head is chopped off?" 2 

This is tantamount to saying that the revolutionaries who 
died under the sabres of the reactionaries for the victory of 
the Russian Revolutions and the October Revolution, the war- 
riors who bravely gave up their lives in the anti-fascist war, 
the heroes who shed their blood in the struggle against im- 
perialism and for national independence and the martyrs to 
the revolutionary cause through the ages were all fools. Why 
should they have given up their heads for adherence to prin- 
ciple? 

This is the philosophy of out-and-out renegades. It is a 
shameless statement, to be found only in the confessions of 
renegades. 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Sixth Congress of the Socialist 
Unity Party of Germany, January 16, 1963. 

2 "Left of Common Sense", Pravda, August 16, 1963. 

244 



Guided by this theory of nuclear fetishism and nuclear 
blackmail, the leaders of the CPSU maintain that the way 
to defend world peace is not for all existing peace forces to 
unite and form the broadest united front against U.S. impe- 
rialism and its lackeys but for the two nuclear powers, the 
United States and the Soviet Union, to co-operate in settling 
the world's problems. 

Khrushchov has said: 

We [the Soviet Union and the United States] are the 
strongest countries in the world and if we unite for peace 
there can be no war. Then if any madman wanted war, 
we would but have to shake our fingers to warn him off 1 

It is thus apparent to everybody how far the leaders of the 
CPSU have gone in regarding the enemy as their friend. 

In order to cover up their error, the leaders of the CPSU 
have not hesitated to attack the correct line of the CPC by 
lies and slanders. They assert that by advocating support for 
the peoples' wars of national liberation and revolutionary civil 
wars the Communist Party of China wants to provoke a nu- 
clear world war. 

This is a curious lie. 

The Communist Party of China has always held that the 
socialist countries should actively support the peoples' rev- 
olutionary struggles, including wars of national liberation and 
revolutionary civil wars. To fail to do so would be to renounce 
their proletarian internationalist duty. At the same time, we 
hold that the oppressed peoples and nations can achieve libera- 
tion only by their own resolute revolutionary struggle and that 
no one else can do it for them. 

We have always maintained that socialist countries must 
not use nuclear weapons to support the peoples' wars of na- 
tional liberation and revolutionary civil wars and have no 
need to do so. 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with the U.S. Correspondent C. L. Sulz- 
berger on September 5, 1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961. 

245 



We have always maintained that the socialist countries 
must achieve and maintain nuclear superiority. Only this 
can prevent the imperialists from launching a nuclear war and 
help bring about the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons. 

We consistently hold that in the hands of a socialist coun- 
try, nuclear weapons must always be defensive weapons for 
resisting imperialist nuclear threats. A socialist country abso- 
lutely must not be the first to use nuclear weapons, nor should 
it in any circumstances play with them or engage in nuclear 
blackmail and nuclear gambling. 

We are opposed both to the wrong practice on the part of 
the leaders of the CPSU of withholding support from the rev- 
olutionary struggles of the peoples and to their wrong approach 
to nuclear weapons. Instead of examining their own errors, 
they accuse us of hoping for a "head-on clash" 1 between the 
Soviet Union and the United States and trying to push them 
into a nuclear war. 

Our answer is: No, friends. You had better cut out your 
sensation mongering calumny. The Chinese Communist Party 
is firmly opposed to a "head-on clash" between the Soviet 
Union and the United States, and not in words only. In deeds 
too it has worked hard to avert direct armed conflict between 
them. Examples of this are the Korean War against U.S. ag- 
gression in which we fought side by side with the Korean 
comrades and our struggle against the United States in the 
Taiwan Straits. We ourselves preferred to shoulder the heavy 
sacrifices necessary and stood in the first line of defense of the 
socialist camp so that the Soviet Union might stay in the 
second line. Have the leaders of the CPSU any sense of pro- 
letarian morality when they concoct such lies? 

In fact, it is not we but the leaders of the CPSU who have 
frequently boasted that they would use nuclear weapons to 
help the anti-imperialist struggle of one country or another. 



1 "The General Line of the International Communist Movement and 
the Schismatic Platform of the Chinese Leaders", editorial board article 
in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 14, 1963. 

246 



As everyone knows, the oppressed peoples and nations have 
no nuclear weapons and they cannot use them to make 
revolutions, nor is there any need for them to do so. The 
leaders of the CPSU admit that there is often no clear battle 
line between the two sides in national liberation wars and 
civil wars, and therefore the use of nuclear weapons is out 
of the question. We should then like to ask the leaders of 
the CPSU: What need is there for a socialist country to sup- 
port the peoples' revolutionary struggles by nuclear weapons? 

We should also like to ask them: How would a socialist 
country use nuclear weapons to support the revolutionary 
struggle of an oppressed people or nation? Would it use 
nuclear weapons on an area where a war of national libera- 
tion or a revolutionary civil war was in progress, thereby 
subjecting both the revolutionary people and the imperialists 
to a nuclear strike? Or would it be the first to use nuclear 
weapons against an imperialist country which was waging a 
conventional war of aggression elsewhere? Obviously, in 
either case it is absolutely impermissible for a socialist country 
to use nuclear weapons. 

The fact is that when the leaders of the CPSU brandish 
their nuclear weapons, it is not really to support the people's 
anti-imperialist struggles. 

Sometimes, in order to gain cheap prestige, they just publish 
empty statements which they never intend to honour. 

At other times, during the Caribbean crisis for instance, 
they engage in speculative, opportunistic and irresponsible 
nuclear gambling for ulterior motives. 

As soon as their nuclear blackmail is seen through and is 
countered in kind, they retreat one step after another, switch 
from adventurism to capitulationism and lose all by their 
nuclear gambling. 

We wish to point out that the great Soviet people and Red 
Army have been and remain a great force safeguarding world 

247 



peace. But Khrushchov's military ideas based on nuclear 
fetishism and nuclear blackmail are entirely wrong. 

Khrushchov sees only nuclear weapons. According to him, 
"The present level of military technique being what it is, the 
Air Force and the Navy have lost their former importance. 
These arms are being replaced and not reduced." 1 

Of course, those units and men having combat duties on the 
ground are even less significant. According to him, "In our 
time, a country's defensive capacity is not determined by the 
number of men under arms, of men in uniform. ... a 
country's defense potential depends in decisive measure on 
the fire-power and the means of delivery that country com- 
mands." 2 

As for the militia and the people, they are still more in- 
consequential. Khrushchov has made the well-known remark 
that for those now having modern weapons at their disposal, 
the militia is not an army but just human flesh. 3 

Khrushchov's whole set of military theories runs completely 
counter to Marxist-Leninist teachings on war and the army. 
To follow his wrong theories will necessarily involve disin- 
tegrating the army and disarming oneself morally. 

Obviously, if any socialist country should accept Khrush- 
chov's erroneous military strategy, it would inevitably place 
itself in a most dangerous position. 

Khrushchov may confer on himself such titles as "a great 
peace champion", award himself a peace prize and pin heroes' 
medals on himself, but no matter how much he may praise 
himself, he will not be able to cover up his dangerous prac- 
tice of recklessly playing with nuclear weapons or his fawning 
before imperialist nuclear blackmail. 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, January 1960. 

2 Ibid. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Meeting of Representatives of 
Fraternal Parties in Bucharest, June 24, 1960. 

248 



FIGHT OR CAPITULATE? 

World peace can be won only through struggle by the 
people of all countries and not by begging the imperialists for 
it. Peace can be effectively safeguarded only by relying on 
the masses of the people and waging a tit-for-tat struggle 
against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. This 
is the correct policy. 

Tit-for-tat struggle is an important conclusion drawn by 
the Chinese people from their prolonged struggle against im- 
perialism and its lackeys. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: 

Chiang Kai-shek always tries to wrest every ounce of 
power and every ounce of gain from the people. And we? 
Our policy is to give him tit for tat and to fight for every 
inch of land. We act after his fashion. 1 

He added: 

He always tries to impose war on the people, one sword 
in his left hand and another in his right. We take up 
swords, too, following his example. 2 

Analysing the domestic political situation in 1945, Comrade 
Mao Tse-tung said: 

How to give "tit for tat" depends on the situation. Some- 
times, not going to negotiations is tit-for-tat; and some- 
times, going to negotiations is also tit-for-tat. ... If they 
start fighting, we fight back, fight to win peace. Peace will 
not come unless we strike hard blows at the reactionaries 
who dare to attack the Liberated Areas. 3 



1 Mao Tse-tung, "The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory 
in the War of Resistance Against Japan", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 14. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Mao Tse-tung, "On the Chungking Negotiations", Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 56. 

249 



He drew the following historical lesson from the failure 
of China's Revolution of 1924-27: 

Confronted by counter-revolutionary attacks against the 
people, Chen Tu-hsiu did not adopt the policy of giving tit 
for tat and fighting for every inch of land; as a result, in 
1927, within the space of a few months, the people lost all 
the rights they had won. 1 

The Chinese Communists understand and adhere to the 
policy of giving tit for tat. We oppose both capitulationism 
and adventurism. This correct policy ensured the victory of 
the Chinese Revolution and the Chinese people's subsequent 
great successes in their struggle against imperialism. 

All revolutionary people approve and welcome this correct 
fighting policy put forward by the Chinese Communists. All 
imperialists and reactionaries fear and hate it. 

The policy of giving tit for tat as put forward by the CPC 
is virulently attacked by the leaders of the CPSU. This only 
goes to show that they do not in the least want to oppose im- 
perialism. Their sole purpose in attacking and smearing the 
policy of tit for tat is to cover up their wrong line of catering 
to the needs of imperialism and surrendering to it. 

The leaders of the CPSU assert that a tit-for-tat struggle 
against imperialism will lead to international tension. How 
terrible! 

According to their logic, the imperialists are allowed to 
commit aggression and make threats against others but the 
victims of imperialist aggression are not allowed to fight, the 
imperialists are allowed to oppress others but the oppressed 
are not allowed to resist. This is a naked attempt to absolve 
the imperialists of their crimes of aggression. This is a 
philosophy of the jungle, pure and simple. 



'Mao Tse-tung, "The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory 
in the War of Resistance Against Japan", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 16. 

250 



International tension is the product of the imperialist poli- 
cies of aggression and war. The peoples should of course 
wage a firm struggle against imperialist aggression and 
threats. Facts have shown that only through struggle can 
imperialism be compelled to retreat and a genuine relaxation 
of international tension be achieved. Constant retreat before 
the imperialists cannot lead to genuine relaxation but will 
only encourage their aggression. 

We have always opposed the creation of international ten- 
sion by imperialism and stood for the relaxation of such ten- 
sion. But the imperialists are bent on committing aggression 
and creating tension everywhere, and that can only lead to 
the opposite of what they desire. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: 

The U.S. imperialists believe that they will always benefit 
from tense situations, but the fact is that tension created 
by the United States has led to the opposite of what they 
desire. It serves to mobilize the people of the whole world 
against the U.S. aggressors. 1 

Further, "If the U.S. monopoly groups persist in their 
policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when 
the people of the world will hang them by the neck." 2 

The Declaration of 1957 rightly says, "By this policy these 
anti-popular, aggressive imperialist forces are courting their 
own ruin, creating their own grave-diggers." 

This is the dialectic of history. Those who revere the im- 
perialists can hardly understand this truth. 

The leaders of the CPSU assert that by advocating a tit- 
for-tat struggle the Chinese Communist Party has rejected 
negotiations. This again is nonsense. 



1 Mao Tse-tung, Speech at the Supreme State Conference, Renmin 
Ribao, September 9, 1958. 

2 Ibid. 

251 



We consistently maintain that those who refuse negotia- 
tions under all circumstances are definitely not Marxist- 
Leninists. 

The Chinese Communists conducted negotiations with the 
Kuomintang many times during the revolutionary civil wars. 
They did not refuse to negotiate even on the eve of nation- 
wide liberation. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said in March 1949: 

Whether the peace negotiations are overall or local, we 
should be prepared for such an eventuality. We should 
not refuse to enter into negotiations because we are afraid 
of trouble and want to avoid complications, nor should we 
enter into negotiations with our minds in a haze. We should 
be firm in principle; we should also have all the flexibility 
permissible and necessary for carrying out our principles. 1 

Internationally, in struggling against imperialism and reac- 
tion, the Chinese Communists take the same correct attitude 
towards negotiations. 

In October 1951, Comrade Mao Tse-tung had this to say 
about the Korean armistice negotiations. 

We have long said that the Korean question should be 
settled by peaceful means. This still holds good now. So 
long as the U.S. Government is willing to settle the ques- 
tion on a just and reasonable basis, and will stop using 
every shameless means possible to wreck and obstruct the 
progress of the negotiations, as it has done in the past, 
success in the Korean armistice negotiation is possible; 
otherwise it is impossible. 2 



1 Mao Tse-tung, "Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh 
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China", Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 372. 

2 Mao Tse-tung, "Opening Speech at the Third Session of the First 
National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Con- 
ference", Renmin Ribao, October 24, 1951. 

252 



Resolute struggle against the U.S. imperialists compelled 
them to accept the Korean armistice agreement in the course 
of negotiations. 

We took an active part in the 1954 Geneva Conference and 
contributed to the restoration of peace in Indo-China. 

We are in favour of negotiations even with the United 
States, which has occupied our territory of Taiwan. The 
Sino-U.S. ambassadorial talks have been going on for more 
than eight years now. 

We took an active part in the 1961 Geneva Conference on 
the Laotian question and promoted the signing of the Geneva 
agreements respecting the independence and neutrality of 
Laos. 

Do the Chinese Communists allow themselves alone to 
negotiate with imperialist countries while opposing negotia- 
tions by the leaders of the CPSU with the leaders of the im- 
perialist countries? 

No, of course not. 

In fact, we have always actively supported all such negotia- 
tions by the Soviet Government with imperialist countries as 
are beneficial and not detrimental to the defence of world 
peace. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said on May 14, 1960: 

We support the holding of the summit conference whether 
or not this sort of conference yields achievements, or 
whether the achievements are big or small. But the winning 
of world peace should depend primarily on resolute struggle 
by the people of all countries. 1 

We favour negotiations with imperialist countries. But 
it is absolutely impermissible to pin hopes for world peace on 
negotiations, spread illusions about them and thereby paralyse 
the fighting will of the peoples, as Khrushchov has done. 



1 Chairman Mao Tse-tung's Talk with Guests from Asia and Latin 
America", Renmin Ribao, May 15, 1960. 

253 



Actually Khrushchov's wrong approach to negotiations is 
itself harmful to negotiations. The more Khrushchov retreats 
before the imperialists and the more he begs, the more the 
appetite of the imperialists will grow. Khrushchov, who 
poses as the greatest devotee of negotiations in history, is 
always an unrequited lover and too often a laughing-stock. 
Countless historical facts have shown that the imperialists 
and reactionaries never care to save the face of the capitula- 
tionists. 



THE ROAD IN DEFENCE OF PEACE AND 
THE ROAD LEADING TO WAR 

To sum up, our difference with the leaders of the CPSU on 
the question of war and peace is one between two different 
lines — whether or not to oppose imperialism, whether or not 
to support revolutionary struggles, whether or not to mobilize 
the people of the world against the imperialist war plots and 
whether or not to adhere to Marxism-Leninism. 

Like all other genuine revolutionary parties, the Communist 
Party of China has always been in the forefront of the struggle 
against imperialism and for world peace. We hold that to 
defend world peace it is necessary constantly to expose im- 
perialism and to arouse and organize the people in struggle 
against the imperialists headed by the United States, and it 
is necessary to place reliance on the growth of the strength 
of the socialist camp, on the revolutionary struggles of the 
proletariat and working people of all countries, on the libera- 
tion struggles of the oppressed nations, on the struggles of 
all peace-loving peoples and countries and on the broad united 
front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. 

This line of ours is in keeping with the common line for all 
Communist Parties laid down in the 1957 Declaration and the 
1960 Statement. 

254 



With this line, it is possible ceaselessly to raise the political 
consciousness of the people and to expand the struggle for 
world peace in the right direction. 

With this line, it is possible constantly to strengthen the 
forces for world peace with the socialist camp as their core 
and strike at and weaken the imperialist forces for war. 

With this line, it is possible constantly to expand the peo- 
ples' revolutions and manacle imperialism. 

With this line, it is possible to turn to account all available 
factors, including the contradictions between U.S. imperialism 
and the other imperialist powers, and to isolate U.S. imperial- 
ism to the fullest extent. 

With this line, it is possible to smash the nuclear black- 
mail practised by U.S. imperialism and defeat its plan for 
launching a new world war. 

This is the line for the people of all countries to win both 
victory in revolution and world peace. It is the sure and effec- 
tive road in defence of world peace. 

But the line pursued by the leaders of the CPSU is diamet- 
rically opposed to our line, to the common line of all Marxist- 
Leninists and revolutionary people. 

The leaders of the CPSU direct the edge of their struggle 
not at the enemy of world peace but at the socialist camp, 
thus weakening and undermining the very core of strength 
which defends world peace. 

They use nuclear blackmail to intimidate the people of the 
socialist countries and forbid them to support the revolu- 
tionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations, thus 
helping U.S. imperialism to isolate the socialist camp and 
suppress peoples' revolutions. 

They use nuclear blackmail to intimidate the oppressed 
peoples and nations and to prohibit them from making revolu- 
tion, and they collaborate with U.S. imperialism in stamping 
out the "sparks" of revolution, thus enabling it freely to 
carry on its policies of aggression and war in the intermediate 
zone lying between the United States and the socialist camp. 

255 



They also intimidate the allies of the United States and 
forbid them to struggle against the control it has imposed on 
them, thus helping U.S. imperialism to enslave these countries 
and consolidate its position. 

By this line of action the leaders of the CPSU have 
altogether relinquished the struggle against the imperialist 
policies of aggression and war. 

This line of action denies the united front against U.S. im- 
perialism and its lackeys and in defence of world peace. 

It tries to impose the greatest isolation not on the arch 
enemy of world peace but on the peace forces. 

It means the liquidation of the fighting task of defending 
world peace. 

This is a line that serves the "global strategy" of U.S. im- 
perialism. 

It is not the road to world peace but the road leading to 
greater danger of war and to war itself. 

Today the world is no longer what it was on the eve of 
World War II. There is the powerful socialist camp. The 
national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America is surging forward. The political consciousness of 
the people of the world has been very much raised. The 
strength of the revolutionary peoples has been very much 
enhanced. The people of the Soviet Union, of the socialist 
countries and of the whole world will never allow their own 
destiny to be manipulated by the imperialist forces for war 
and their trumpeters. 

The aggression and war activities of the imperialists and 
reactionaries are teaching the people of the world gradually 
to raise their political consciousness. Social practice is the 
sole criterion of truth. We are confident that as a result of 
such teaching by the imperialists and reactionaries, many 
people now holding wrong views on the question of war and 
peace will change their minds. We have high hopes on this 
score. 

256 



We firmly believe that the Communists and the people of 
the world will surely smash the imperialist plan for launching 
a new world war and safeguard world peace provided they 
expose the imperialist frauds, see through the revisionist lies 
and shoulder the task of defending world peace. 



PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE 

— TWO DIAMETRICALLY 

OPPOSED POLICIES 

Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
(People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(December 12, 1964) 



SINCE the 20th Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov and 
other comrades have talked more about the question of 
peaceful coexistence than about anything else. 

Again and again the leaders of the CPSU claim that they 
have been faithful to Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence 
and have creatively developed it. They ascribe to their policy 
of "peaceful coexistence" all the credit for the victories won 
by the peoples of the world in prolonged revolutionary 
struggles. 

They advertise the notion that imperialism, and U.S. im- 
perialism in particular, supports peaceful coexistence, and 
they wantonly malign the Chinese Communist Party and all 
Marxist-Leninist Parties as being opponents of peaceful 
coexistence. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of 
the CPSU even slanders China as favouring "competition in 
unleashing war" with the imperialists. 

They describe the words and deeds by which they have 
betrayed Marxism-Leninism, the proletarian world revolution 
and the revolutionary cause of the oppressed peoples and na- 
tions as being in conformity with Lenin's policy of peaceful 
coexistence. 

But can the words "peaceful coexistence" really serve as 
a talisman for the leaders of the CPSU in their betrayal of 
Marxism-Leninism? No, absolutely not. 

We are now confronted with two diametrically opposed 
policies of peaceful coexistence. 

One is Lenin and Stalin's policy of peaceful coexistence, 
which all Marxist-Leninists, including the Chinese Com- 
munists, stand for. 

The other is the anti-Leninist policy of peaceful coexist- 
ence, the so-called general line of peaceful coexistence 
advocated by Khrushchov and others. 

261 



Let us now examine Lenin and Stalin's policy of peaceful 
coexistence and the stuff Khrushchov and others call the 
general line of peaceful coexistence. 



LENIN AND STALIN'S POLICY OF PEACEFUL 
COEXISTENCE 

It was Lenin who advanced the idea that the socialist state 
should pursue a policy of peaceful coexistence towards coun- 
tries with different social systems. This correct policy was 
long followed by the Communist Party and the Government 
of the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin. 

The question of peaceful coexistence between socialist and 
capitalist countries could not possibly have arisen prior to the 
October Revolution, since there was no socialist country in 
existence. Nevertheless, on the basis of his scientific analysis 
of imperialism, Lenin foresaw in 1915-16 that "socialism can- 
not achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will 
achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the 
others will remain bourgeois or pre -bourgeois for some time". 1 
In other words, within a certain period of time, socialist coun- 
tries would exist side by side with capitalist or pre-capitalist 
countries. The very nature of the socialist system determines 
that socialist countries must pursue a foreign policy of peace. 
Lenin said, "Only the working class, when it wins power, can 
pursue a policy of peace not in words . . . but in deeds." 2 
These views of Lenin's can be said to constitute the theoretical 
basis of the policy of peaceful coexistence. 

After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin pro- 
claimed to the world on many occasions that the foreign policy 
of the Soviet state was one of peace. But the imperialists 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1950, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Draft Resolution on the Current Moment in Politics", 
Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXV, pp. 291-92. 

262 



were bent on strangling the new-born socialist republic in its 
cradle. They launched armed intervention against the Soviet 
state. Lenin rightly pointed out that confronted with this 
situation "unless we defended the socialist republic by force 
of arms, we could not exist". 1 

By 1920 the great Soviet people had defeated the imperialist 
armed intervention. A relative equilibrium of forces had 
come into being between the Soviet state and the imperialist 
countries. After trials of strength over several years, the 
Soviet state had stood its ground. It began to turn from war 
to peaceful construction. It was in these circumstances that 
Lenin advanced the idea of a policy of peaceful coexistence. 
In fact, from that time onwards the imperialists had no choice 
but to "coexist" with the Soviet state. 

During Lenin's lifetime, this equilibrium was always highly 
unstable and the Soviet Socialist Republic was subject to 
stringent capitalist encirclement. Time and again Lenin 
pointed out that owing to the aggressive nature of imperialism 
there was no guarantee that socialism and capitalism would 
live in peace for long. 

In the prevailing conditions, it was not yet possible for him 
to define at length the content of the policy of peaceful coexist- 
ence between countries with different social systems. But 
the great Lenin laid down the correct foreign policy for the 
first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and advanced 
the basic ideas of the policy of peaceful coexistence. 

What were Lenin's basic ideas on this policy? 

First, Lenin pointed out that the socialist state existed in 
defiance of the imperialists' will. Although it adhered to the 
foreign policy of peace, the imperialists had no desire to live 
in peace with it and would do everything possible and seize 
every opportunity to oppose or even destroy the socialist state. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Com- 
munist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, 
pp. 33. 

263 



Lenin said: 

International imperialism . . . could not . . . live side by 
side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective 
position and because of the economic interests of the capital- 
ist class which are embodied in it. . . . J 

Further: 

... the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with 
imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or 
the other must triumph in the end. And before that end 
supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet 
Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable. 2 

He therefore stressed time and again that the socialist state 
should maintain constant vigilance against imperialism. 

. . . the lesson all workers and peasants must master is 
that we must be on our guard and remember that we are 
surrounded by men, classes anti- governments openly ex- 
pressing their extreme hatred for us. We must remember 
that we are always at a hair's breadth from all kinds of 
invasions. 3 

Secondly. Lenin pointed out that it was only through 
struggle that the Soviet state was able to live in peace with 
the imperialist countries. This was the result of repeated 
trials of strength between the imperialist countries and the 
Soviet state, which adopted a correct policy, relied on the 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Report on War and Peace, Delivered to the Seventh 
Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), March 7, 1918", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 422. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Com- 
munist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress, March 18, 
1919", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 
1943, Vol. VIII, p. 33. 

3 V. I. Lenin. "On the Domestic and Foreign Policies of the Republic, 
Report Delivered at the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets", Col- 
lected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, SPPL, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 122. 

264 



support of the proletariat and oppressed nations of the world 
and utilized the contradictions among the imperialists. 
Lenin said in November 1919: 

That is the way it always is — when the enemy is beaten, 
he begins talking peace. We have told these gentlemen, 
the imperialists of Europe, time and again that we agree to 
make peace, but they continued to dream of enslaving 
Russia. Now they have realized that their dreams are not 
fated to come true. 1 

He pointed out in 1921: 

. . . the imperialist powers, with all their hatred of Soviet 
Russia and desire to throw themselves upon her, have had 
to reject this thought, because the decay of the capitalist 
world is increasingly advancing, its unity is becoming less 
and less, and the pressure of the forces of the oppressed 
colonial peoples, with a population of over 1,000 million, is 
becoming stronger with each year, each month and even 
each week. 2 

Thirdly, in carrying out the, policy of peaceful coexistence. 
Lenin adopted different principles with regard to the different 
types of countries in the capitalist world. 

He attached particular importance to establishing friendly 
relations with countries which the imperialists were bullying 
and oppressing. He pointed out that "the fundamental in- 
terests of all peoples suffering from the yoke of imperialism 
coincide" and that the "world policy of imperialism is leading 
to the establishment of closer relations, alliance and friendship 
among all the oppressed nations". He said that the peace 



'V. I. Lenin, "Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian Conference 
on Party Work in the Countryside", Alliance of the Working Class and 
the Peasantry, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 326. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Speech at the Conclusion of the Tenth National Con- 
ference of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)", Collected Works, 
Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, pp. 412-13. 

265 



policy of the Soviet state "will increasingly compel the estab- 
lishment of closer ties between the R.S.F.S.R. [Russian Soviet 
Federated Socialist Republic] and a growing number of neigh- 
bouring states". 1 
Lenin also said: 

We now set as the main task for ourselves: to defeat the 
exploiters and win the waverers to our side — this task is 
a world-wide one. The waverers include a whole series of 
bourgeois states, which as bourgeois states hate us, but on 
the other hand, as oppressed states, prefer peace with us. 2 

As for the basis for peace with the imperialist countries, 
such as the United States, he said, "Let the U.S. capitalists 
refrain from touching us." " 'The obstacle to such a peace?' 
From our side, there is none. From the side of the American 
(and all the other) capitalists, it is imperialism." 3 

Fourthly, Lenin advanced the policy of peaceful coexistence 
as a policy to be pursued by the proletariat in power towards 
countries with different social systems. He never made it the 
sum total of a socialist country's foreign policy. Time and 
again Lenin made it clear that the fundamental principle of 
this foreign policy was proletarian internationalism. 

He said. "Soviet Russia considers it her greatest pride to 
help the workers of the whole world in their difficult struggle 
for the overthrow of capitalism." 4 



1 V. I. Lenin. "The Work of the Council of People's Commissars, Re- 
port Delivered at the Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, 
pp. 251 and 252. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Report on the Work of the All-Russian Central Execu- 
tive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars", Collected 
Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 299. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "Reply to Questions by the Correspondent of the Amer- 
ican Newspaper, New York Evening Journal", Collected Works, Russ. 
ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 340. 

4 V. I. Lenin, "To the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern and 
the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Red Army Deputies", Collected 
Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 379. 

266 



In the Decree on Peace issued after the October Revolu- 
tion, while proposing an immediate peace without annexation 
or indemnities to all the belligerent countries, Lenin called 
upon the class-conscious workers in the capitalist countries to 
help, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigorous 
action "to bring to a successful conclusion the cause of peace, 
and at the same time the cause of the emancipation of the 
toiling and exploited masses of the population from all forms 
of slavery and all forms of exploitation". 1 

The Draft Programme of the Party which Lenin drew up 
for the Seventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party 
laid down explicitly that "support of the revolutionary move- 
ment of the socialist proletariat in the advanced countries 
and "support of the democratic and revolutionary movement 
in all countries in general, and particularly in the colonies and 
dependent countries" constituted the important aspects of the 
Party's international policy. 2 

Fifthly, Lenin consistently held that it was impossible for 
the oppressed classes and nations to coexist peacefully with 
the oppressor classes and nations. 

In the "Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second 
Congress of the Communist International", he pointed out: 

. . . the bourgeoisie, even the most educated and dem- 
ocratic, now no longer hesitates to resort to any fraud or 
crime, to massacre millions of workers and peasants in order 
to save the private ownership of the means of production." 3 

Lenin's conclusions were: 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Report on Peace", delivered at the Second All-Russian 
Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 331. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Rough Draft of a Programme", delivered at the Seventh 
Congress of Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, p. 334. 

3 V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New 
York, 1943, Vol. X, p 164. 

267 



. . . the very thought of peacefully subordinating the 
capitalists to the will of the majority of the exploited, of 
the peaceful, reformist transition to Socialism is not only 
extreme philistine stupidity, but also downright deception 
of the workers, the embellishment of capitalist wage slavery, 
concealment of the truth. 1 

He repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy of what the imperial- 
ists called the equality of nations. He said: 

The League of Nations and the whole postwar policy of 
the Entente reveal this truth more clearly and distinctly 
than ever; they are everywhere intensifying the revolu- 
tionary struggle both of the proletariat in the advanced 
countries and of the masses of the working people in the 
colonial and dependent countries, and are hastening the 
collapse of the petty-bourgeois national illusion that nations 
can live together in peace and equality under capitalism. 2 

The above constitute Lenin's basic ideas on the policy of 
peaceful coexistence. 

Stalin upheld Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence. In 
the thirty years during which he was the leader of the Soviet 
Union, he consistently pursued this policy. It was only when 
the imperialists and reactionaries made armed provocations 
or launched aggressive wars against the Soviet Union that she 
had to wage the Great Patriotic War and to fight back in self- 
defence. 

Stalin pointed out that "our relations with the capitalist 
countries are based on the assumption that the coexistence of 
two opposite systems is possible" and that "the maintenance 



1 Ibid. 

2 V. I. Lenin. "Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colo- 
nial Questions", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, 
Part 2, p. 464. 

268 



of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obliga- 
tory task for us". 1 
He also pointed out: 

The peaceful coexistence of capitalism and communism is 
quite possible provided there is a mutual desire to co- 
operate, readiness to carry out undertaken commitments, 
and observance of the principle of equality and non-inter- 
ference in the internal affairs of other states. 2 

While upholding Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence, 
Stalin firmly opposed withholding support from other people's 
revolutions in order to curry favour with imperialism. He 
forcefully pointed out two opposite lines in foreign policy, 
"either one or the other" of which must be followed. 

One line was that "we continue to pursue a revolutionary 
policy, rallying the proletarians and the oppressed of all coun- 
tries around the working class Of the U.S.S.R. — in which case 
international capital will do everything it can to hinder our 
advance". 

The other was that "we renounce our revolutionary policy 
and agree to make a number of fundamental concessions to 
international capital — in which case international capital, no 
doubt, will not be averse to 'assisting' us in converting our 
socialist country into a 'good' bourgeois republic". 

Stalin cited an example. "America demands that we re- 
nounce in principle the policy of supporting the emancipation 
movement of the working class in other countries, and says 
that if we made this concession everything would go smoothly. 
. . . perhaps we should make this concession?" 



1 J. V. Stalin, "Political Report of the Central Committee", delivered 
at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1954, Vol. X, p. 296. 

2 J. V. Stalin, "Replies to Questions of American Editors", Pravda, 
April 2, 1952. 

269 



And he answered in the negative, ". . . we cannot agree 
to these or similar concessions without being false to ourselves. 

These remarks of Stalin's are still of great practical signif- 
icance. There are indeed two diametrically opposed foreign 
policies, two diametrically opposed policies of peaceful coexist- 
ence. It is an important task for all Marxist-Leninists to dis- 
tinguish between them, uphold Lenin and Stalin's policy and 
firmly oppose the policy of betrayal, capitulation and with- 
holding support from revolution as well as the policy which 
converts a socialist country into a "good" bourgeois republic 
— policies which Stalin denounced. 



THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA UPHOLDS 
LENIN'S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
alleges that the Chinese Communist Party "disbelieves in the 
possibility of peaceful coexistence" and slanderously accuses 
it of opposing Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence. 

Is this true? No. Of course not. 

Anyone who respects facts can see clearly that the Chinese 
Communist Party and the Government of the People's Re- 
public of China have unswervingly pursued Lenin's policy of 
peaceful coexistence with great success. 

Since World War II, a fundamental change has taken place 
in the international balance of class forces. Socialism has 
triumphed in a number of countries and the socialist camp 
has come into being. The national liberation movement is 
growing apace and there have emerged many nationalist states 
which have newly acquired political independence. The im- 
perialist camp has been greatly weakened and the contradic- 



1 J. V. Stalin, "The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central 
Committee and Central Control Commission", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, pp. 58, 59 and 60. 

270 



tions among the imperialist countries are becoming increasing- 
ly acute. This situation provides more favourable conditions 
for the socialist countries to carry out the policy of peaceful 
coexistence towards countries with different social systems. 

In these new historical conditions, the Chinese Communist 
Party and the Chinese Government have enriched Lenin's 
policy of peaceful coexistence in the course of applying it. 

On the eve of the birth of the People's Republic of China, 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: 

... we proclaim to the whole world that what we oppose 
is exclusively the imperialist system and its plots against the 
Chinese people. We are willing to discuss with any foreign 
government the establishment of diplomatic relations on the 
basis of the principles of equality, mutual benefit and mutual 
respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, provided it 
is willing to sever relations with the Chinese reactionaries, 
stops conspiring with them or helping them and adopts an 
attitude of genuine, and not hypocritical, friendship towards 
People's China. The Chinese people wish to have friendly 
co-operation with the people of all countries and to resume 
and expand international trade in order to develop production 
and promote economic prosperity. 1 

In accordance with these principles set forth by Comrade 
Mao Tse-tung, we laid down our foreign policy of peace in ex- 
plicit terms first in the Common Programme adopted by the 
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Septem- 
ber 1949 and subsequently in the Constitution of the People's 
Republic of China adopted by the National People's Congress 
in September 1954. 

In 1954 the Chinese Government initiated the celebrated 
Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. They are mutual re- 
spect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non- 



1 Mao Tse-tung, "Address to the Preparatory Committee of the New 
Political Consultative Conference", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Pe- 
king, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 408. 

271 



aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, 
equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. To- 
gether with other Asian and African countries, we formulated 
the Ten Principles on the basis of the Five Principles at the 
Banding Conference of 1955. 

In 1956 Comrade Mao Tse-tung summed up our country's 
practical experience in international affairs and further ex- 
plained the general principles of our foreign policy. 

To achieve a lasting world peace, we must further develop 
our friendship and co-operation with the fraternal countries 
in the camp of socialism and strengthen our solidarity with all 
peace-loving countries. We must endeavour to establish 
normal diplomatic relations on the basis of mutual respect 
for territorial integrity and sovereignty and of equality and 
mutual benefit with all countries willing to live together 
with us in peace. We must give active support to the 
national independence and liberation movement in countries 
in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as to the peace 
movement and to just struggles in all countries throughout 
the world. 1 

In 1957 he said: 

To strengthen our unity With the Soviet Union, to 
strengthen our unity with all socialist countries — this is our 
fundamental policy, herein lies our basic interest. 

Then, there are the Asian and African countries, and all 
the peace-loving countries and peoples — we must strength- 
en and develop our unity with them. 

As for the imperialist countries, we should also unite 
with their peoples and strive to coexist in peace with these 
countries, do business with them and prevent any possible 
war, but under no circumstances should we harbour any 
unrealistic notions about them. 2 

1 Mao Tse-tung, "Opening Address to the Eighth National Congress 
of the Communist Party of China". 

2 Mao Tse-tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among 
the People. 

272 



In our foreign affairs over the past fourteen years, we have 
adopted different policies towards different types of countries 
and varied our policies according to the different conditions 
in countries of the same type. 

1. We differentiate between socialist and capitalist coun- 
tries. We persevere in the proletarian internationalist prin- 
ciple of mutual assistance with regard to socialist countries. 
We take the upholding and strengthening of the unity of all 
the countries in the socialist camp as the fundamental policy 
in our foreign relations. 

2. We differentiate between the nationalist countries which 
have newly attained political independence and the imperial- 
ist countries. 

Although fundamentally different from the socialist coun- 
tries in their social and political systems, the nationalist coun- 
tries stand in profound contradiction to imperialism. They have 
common interests with the socialist countries — opposition to 
imperialism, the safeguarding of national independence and 
the defense of world peace. Therefore, it is quite possible 
and feasible for the socialist countries to establish relations 
of peaceful coexistence and friendly co-operation with these 
countries. The establishment of such relations is of great 
significance for the strengthening of the unity of the anti- 
imperialist forces and for the advancement of the common 
struggle of the peoples against imperialism. 

We have consistently adhered to the policy of consolidating 
and further developing peaceful coexistence and friendly co- 
operation with countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 
At the same time, we have waged appropriate and necessary 
struggles against countries such as India which have violated 
or wrecked the Five Principles. 

3. We differentiate between the ordinary capitalist coun- 
tries and the imperialist countries and also between different 
imperialist countries. 

As the international balance of class forces grows increasing- 
ly favourable to socialism and as the imperialist forces become 

273 



daily weaker and the contradictions among them daily sharper, 
it is possible for the socialist countries to compel one imperial- 
ist country or another to establish some sort of peaceful co- 
existence with them by relying on their own growing strength, 
the expansion of the revolutionary forces of the peoples, the 
unity with the nationalist countries and the struggle of all the 
peace-loving people, and by utilizing the internal contradic- 
tions of imperialism. 

While persevering in peaceful coexistence with countries 
having different social systems, we unswervingly perform our 
proletarian internationalist duty. We actively support the na- 
tional liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 
the working-class movements of Western Europe, North 
America and Oceania, the people's revolutionary struggles, 
and the people's struggles against the imperialist policies of 
aggression and war and for world peace. 

In all this we have but one objective in view, that is, with 
the socialist camp and the international proletariat as the 
nucleus, to unite all the forces that can be united in order to 
for a broad united front against U.S. imperialism and its 
lackeys. 

On the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, 
the Chinese Government over the past ten years and more 
has established friendly relations with many countries having 
different social systems and promoted economic and cultural 
exchanges with them. China has concluded treaties of friend- 
ship, of peace and friendship or of friendship, mutual assistance 
and mutual non-aggression with the Yemen, Burma, Nepal, 
Afghanistan, Guinea, Cambodia, Indonesia and Ghana. She 
has successfully settled her boundary questions with Burma, 
Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., questions which were left 
over by history. 

No one can obliterate the great achievements of the Chinese 
Communist Party and the Chinese Government in upholding 
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence. 

274 



In manufacturing the lie that China opposes peaceful coexist- 
ence, the leaders of the CPSU are prompted by ulterior mo- 
tives. To put it bluntly, their aim is to draw a veil over their 
own ugliness in betraying proletarian internationalism and 
colluding with imperialism. 



THE GENERAL LINE OF "PEACEFUL 
COEXISTENCE" OF THE CPSU LEADERS 

It is not we, but the leaders of the CPSU, who in fact violate 
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence. 

The leaders of the CPSU have lauded their concept of peace- 
ful coexistence in superlative terms. What are their main 
views on the question of peaceful coexistence? 

1. The leaders of the CPSU maintain that peaceful co- 
existence is the overriding and supreme principle for solving 
contemporary social problems. They assert that it is "the 
categorical imperative of modern times" and "the imperious 
demand of the epoch". 1 They say that "peaceful coexistence 
alone is the best and the sole acceptable way to solve the vital- 
ly important problems confronting society" 2 and that the prin- 
ciple of peaceful coexistence should be made the "basic law 
of life for the whole of modern society". 3 

2. They hold that imperialism has become willing to ac- 
cept peaceful coexistence and is no longer the obstacle to it. 
They say that "not a few government and state leaders of 
Western countries are now also coming out for peace and 
peaceful coexistence", 4 and that they "understand more and 

'B. N. Ponomaryov, "Victorious Banner of the Communists of the 
World", Pravda, November 18, 1962. 

2 A. Rumyantsev, "Our Common Ideological Weapon", World Marxist 
Review, No. 1, 1962. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 
23, 1960. 

4 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Gadjah Mada University, Djokja- 
karta, Indonesia, February 21, 1960. 

275 



more clearly the necessity of peaceful coexistence". 1 In partic- 
ular they have loudly announced a U.S. President's "admis- 
sion of the reasonableness and practicability of peaceful co- 
existence between countries with different social systems". 2 

3. They advocate "all-round co-operation" with imperialist 
countries, and especially with the United States. They say 
that the Soviet Union and the United States "will be able to 
find a basis for concerted actions and efforts for the good of 
all humanity" 3 and can "march hand in hand for the sake of 
consolidating peace and establishing real international co- 
operation between all states". 4 

4. They assert that peaceful coexistence is "the general line 
of foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the countries of the 
socialist camp". 5 

5. They also assert that "the principle of peaceful coexist- 
ence determines the general line of foreign policy of the CPSU 
and other Marxist-Leninist Parties", 6 that it is "the basis of 
the strategy of communism" in the world today, and that all 
Communists "have made the struggle for peaceful coexistence 
the general principle of their policy". 7 

6. They regard peaceful coexistence as the prerequisite for 
victory in the peoples' revolutionary struggles. They hold 
that the victories won by the people of different countries have 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, January 1960. 

2 "On the Interview of the U.S. President J. Kennedy", editorial board 
article in Izvestia, December 4, 1961. 

3 Telegram of Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev 
to J. F. Kennedy, December 30, 1961. 

4 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 
23, 1960. 

5 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Reception Given by the Embassy 
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the Soviet Union, 
July 5, 1961. 

6 B. N. Ponomaryov, "Some Problems of the Revolutionary Move- 
ment", World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962. 

7 "Peaceful Coexistence and Revolution", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 2, 
1962. 

276 



been achieved under "conditions of peaceful coexistence be- 
tween states with different social systems". 1 They assert that 
"it was precisely in conditions of peaceful coexistence between 
states with different social systems that the socialist revolu- 
tion triumphed in Cuba, that the Algerian people gained 
national independence, that more than forty countries won 
national independence, that the fraternal Parties grew in 
number and strength, and that the influence of the world 
communist movement increased". 2 

7. They hold that peaceful coexistence is "the best way of 
helping the international revolutionary labour movement 
achieve its basic class aims". 3 They declare that under peace- 
ful coexistence the possibility of a peaceful transition to so- 
cialism in capitalist countries has grown. They believe, more- 
over, that the victory of socialism in economic competition 
"will mean delivering a crushing blow to the entire system of 
capitalist relationships". 4 They state that "when the Soviet 
people enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of 
millions of people on earth will say: 'We are for commu- 
nism!' " 5 and that by then even capitalists may "go over to the 
Communist Party". 

Just consider. What do these views have in common with 
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence? 

Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence is one followed by a 
socialist country in its relations with countries having dif- 
ferent social systems, whereas Khrushchov describes peaceful 
coexistence as the supreme principle governing the life of 
modern society. 



1 B. N. Ponomaryov, "A New Stage in the General Crisis of Capital- 
ism", Pravda, February 8, 1961. 

2 Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPC, March 30, 1963. 

3 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to All Party 
Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

4 B. N. Ponomaryov, "Some Problems of the Revolutionary Move- 
ment", World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962. 
5 Programme of the CPSU, adopted by the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. 

277 



Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes one aspect 
of the international policy of the proletariat in power, whereas 
Khrushchev stretches peaceful coexistence into the general 
line of foreign policy for the socialist countries and even fur- 
ther into the general line for all Communist Parties. 

Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence was directed against 
the imperialist policies of aggression and war, whereas Khru- 
shchov's peaceful coexistence caters to imperialism and abets 
the imperialist policies of aggression and war. 

Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence is based on the stand- 
point of international class struggle, whereas Khrushchov's 
peaceful coexistence strives to replace international class 
struggle with international class collaboration. 

Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence proceeds from the 
historical mission of the international proletariat and there- 
fore requires the socialist countries to give firm support to 
the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and 
nations while pursuing this policy, whereas Khrushchov's 
peaceful coexistence seeks to replace the proletarian world 
revolution with pacifism and thus renounces proletarian in- 
ternationalism. 

Khrushchov has changed the policy of peaceful coexistence 
into one of class capitulation. In the name of peaceful co- 
existence, he has renounced the revolutionary principles of 
the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960, robbed 
Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary soul, and distorted and 
mutilated it beyond recognition. 

This is a brazen betrayal of Marxism-Leninism! 



THREE DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE 

On the question of peaceful coexistence the difference be- 
tween the leaders of the CPSU, on the one hand, and ourselves 
and all Marxist-Leninist Parties and indeed all Marxist-Lenin- 
ists, on the other, is not whether socialist countries should 

278 



pursue the policy of peaceful coexistence. It is an issue of 
principle concerning the correct attitude towards Lenin's policy 
of peaceful coexistence. It manifests itself mainly in three 
questions. 

The first question is: In order to attain peaceful coexist- 
ence, is it necessary to ravage struggles against imperialism and 
bourgeois reaction? Is it possible through peaceful coexist- 
ence to abolish the antagonism and struggle between socialism 
and imperialism? 

Marxist-Leninists consistently maintain that as far as the 
socialist countries are concerned, there is no obstacle to the 
practice of peaceful coexistence between countries with dif- 
ferent social systems. The obstacles always come from the 
imperialists and the bourgeois reactionaries. 

The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence were advanced 
to combat the imperialist policies of aggression and war. Under 
these principles, it is impermissible in international relations 
to encroach upon the territory and sovereignty of other coun- 
tries, interfere in their internal affairs, impair their interests 
and equal status or wage aggressive wars against them. But it 
is in the very nature of imperialism to commit aggression 
against other countries and nations and to desire to enslave 
them. As long as imperialism exists, its nature will never 
change. That is why intrinsically the imperialists are un- 
willing to accept the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. 
Whenever possible, they try to disrupt and destroy the so- 
cialist countries and they commit aggression against other 
countries and nations and try to enslave them. 

History shows that it is only owing to unfavourable objec- 
tive causes that the imperialists dare not risk starting a war 
against the socialist countries, or are forced to agree to an 
armistice and to accept some sort of peaceful coexistence. 

History also shows that there have always been sharp and 
complex struggles between the imperialist and socialist coun- 
tries, which have sometimes culminated in direct military 
conflicts or wars. When hot wars are not in progress, the 

279 



imperialists wage cold wars, which they have been ceaselessly 
waging ever since the end of World War II. In fact, the im- 
perialist and the socialist countries have been in a state of 
cold-war coexistence. At the same time as they actively ex- 
pand their armaments and prepare for war, the imperialist 
countries use every means to oppose the socialist countries 
politically, economically and ideologically, and even make mil- 
itary provocations and war threats against them. The im- 
perialists' cold war against the socialist countries and the lat- 
ter 's resistance to it are manifestations of the international 
class struggle. 

The imperialists push on with their plans of aggression and 
war not only against the socialist countries but throughout 
the world. They try to suppress the revolutionary movements 
of the oppressed peoples and nations. 

In these circumstances, the socialist countries, together with 
the people of all other countries, must resolutely combat the 
imperialist policies of aggression and war and wage a tit-for- 
tat struggle against imperialism. This class struggle inevita- 
bly goes on, now in an acute and now in a relaxed form. 

But Khrushchev is impervious to these inexorable facts. He 
proclaims far and wide that imperialism has already admitted 
the necessity of peaceful coexistence, and he regards the anti- 
imperialist struggles of the socialist countries and of the people 
of the world as incompatible with the policy of peaceful co- 
existence. 

In Khrushchov's opinion, a socialist country has to make 
one concession after another and keep on yielding to the im- 
perialists and the bourgeois reactionaries even when they 
subject it to military threats and armed attack or make hu- 
miliating demands which violate its sovereignty and dignity. 

By this logic, Khrushchov describes his incessant retreats, 
his bartering away of principles and docile acceptance of the 
U.S. imperialists' humiliating demands during the Caribbean 
crisis as "a victory of peaceful coexistence". 

280 



By the same logic, Khrushchov describes China's adherence 
to correct principles on the Sino-Indian boundary question 
and her counter-attack against the military onslaught of the 
Indian reactionaries, an act of self-defence by China when the 
situation became intolerable, as "a violation of peaceful co- 
existence". 

At times, Khrushchov also talks about struggle between 
the two different social systems. But how does he see this 
struggle? 

He has said, "The inevitable struggle between the two 
systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a 
struggle of ideas. . . ." 1 

Here the political struggle has disappeared! 

He has also said: 

The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states 
with differing socio-economic and political systems does 
not mean just an absence of war, a temporary state of un- 
stable ceasefire. It presupposes the maintenance between 
these states of friendly economic and political relations, it 
envisages the establishment and development of various 
forms of peaceful international co-operation. 2 

Here, struggle has disappeared altogether! 

Like a conjurer, Khrushchov plays one trick after another, 
first reducing major issues to minor ones, and then minor is- 
sues to naught. He denies the basic antagonism between the 
socialist and capitalist systems, he denies the fundamental 
contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps, 
and he denies the existence of international class struggle. And 
so he transforms peaceful coexistence between the two systems 
and the two camps into "all-round co-operation". 



'N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of 
the USSR, January 1960. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, "Answers to the Questions of the Austrian Pro- 
fessor Hans Thirring", Pravda, January 3, 1962. 

281 



The second question is: Can peaceful coexistence be made 
the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries? 

We hold that the general line of foreign policy for socialist 
countries must embody the fundamental principle of their 
foreign policy and comprise the fundamental content of this 
policy. 

What is this fundamental principle? It is proletarian in- 
ternationalism. 

Lenin said, "The foreign policy of the proletariat is alliance 
with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with 
all the oppressed nations against all and any imperialists." 1 
This principle of proletarian internationalism advanced by 
Lenin should be the guide for the foreign policy of socialist 
countries. 

Since the formation of the socialist camp, every socialist 
country has had to deal with three kinds of relations in its 
foreign policy, namely, its relations with other socialist coun- 
tries, with countries having different social systems, and with 
the oppressed peoples and nations. 

In our view, the following should therefore be the content 
of the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries: 
to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and co- 
operation among the countries of the socialist camp in accord- 
ance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; to 
strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five Prin- 
ciples with countries having different social systems and op- 
pose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; and to 
support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all the op- 
pressed peoples and nations. These three aspects are inter- 
related and not a single one can be omitted. 

The leaders of the CPSU have one-sidedly reduced the 
general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries to 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Foreign Policy of the Russian Revolution", 
Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. 
XXV, p. 87. 

282 



peaceful coexistence. We would like to ask: How should a 
socialist country handle its relations with other socialist coun- 
tries? Should it merely maintain relations of peaceful co- 
existence with them? 

Of course, socialist countries, too, must abide by the Five 
Principles in their mutual relations. It is absolutely imper- 
missible for any one of them to undermine the territorial in- 
tegrity of another fraternal country, to impair its independ- 
ence and sovereignty, interfere in its internal affairs, carry on 
subversive activities inside it, or violate the principle of equal- 
ity and mutual benefit in its relations with another fraternal 
country. But merely to carry out these principles is far from 
enough. The 1957 Declaration states: 

These are vital principles. However, they do not exhaust 
the essence of relations between them. Fraternal mutual 
aid is part and parcel of these relations. This aid is a strik- 
ing expression of socialist internationalism. 

In making peaceful coexistence the general line of foreign 
policy, the leaders of the CPSU have in fact liquidated the 
proletarian internationalist relations of mutual assistance and 
co-operation among socialist countries and put the fraternal 
socialist countries on a par with the capitalist countries. This 
amounts to liquidating the socialist camp. 

The leaders of the CPSU have one-sidedly reduced the gen- 
eral line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries to 
peaceful coexistence. We would like to ask: How should a 
socialist country handle its relations with the oppressed peoples 
and nations? Should the relationship between the proletariat 
in power and its class brothers who have not yet emancipated 
themselves or between it and all oppressed peoples and nations 
be one of peaceful coexistence alone and not of mutual help? 

After the October Revolution, Lenin repeatedly stressed that 
the land of socialism, which had established the dictatorship 

283 



of the proletariat, was a base for promoting the proletarian 
world revolution. Stalin, too, said: 

The revolution which has been victorious in one country 
must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an 
aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat 
in all countries. 1 

He added that "it constitutes ... a mighty base for its fur- 
ther development [i.e., of the world revolution]". 2 

In their foreign policy, therefore, socialist countries can in 
no circumstances confine themselves to handling relations 
with countries having different social systems, but must also 
correctly handle the relations among themselves and their 
relations with the oppressed peoples and nations. They must 
make support of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed 
peoples and nations their internationalist duty and an impor- 
tant component of their foreign policy. 

In contrast with Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchov makes peace- 
ful coexistence the general line of foreign policy for socialist 
countries and, in so doing, excludes from this policy the pro- 
letarian internationalist task of helping the revolutionary strug- 
gles of the oppressed peoples and nations. So far from being 
a "creative development" of the policy of peaceful coexistence, 
this is a betrayal of proletarian internationalism on the pre- 
text of peaceful coexistence. 

The third question is: Can the policy of peaceful coexist- 
ence of the socialist countries be the general line for all Com- 
munist Parties and for the international communist move- 
ment? Can it be substituted for the people's revolution? 

We maintain that peaceful coexistence connotes a relation- 
ship between countries with different social systems, between 
independent sovereign states. Only after victory in the rev- 
olution is it possible and necessary for the proletariat to 

1 J. V. Stalin, "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian 
Communists", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 415. 

2 Ibid., p. 419. 

284 



pursue the policy of peaceful coexistence. As for oppressed 
peoples and nations, their task is to strive for their own 
liberation and overthrow the rule of imperialism and its 
lackeys. They should not practise peaceful coexistence with 
the imperialists and their lackeys, nor is it possible for them 
to do so. 

It is therefore wrong to apply peaceful coexistence to the 
relations between oppressed and oppressor classes and be- 
tween oppressed and oppressor nations, or to stretch the 
socialist countries' policy of peaceful coexistence so as to 
make it the policy of the Communist Parties and the revolu- 
tionary people in the capitalist world, or to subordinate the 
revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations 
to it. 

We have always held that the correct application of Lenin's 
policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries helps 
to develop their power, to expose the imperialist policies of 
aggression and war and to unite all the anti-imperialist peoples 
and countries, and it therefore helps the people's struggles 
against imperialism and its lackeys. At the same time, by 
directly hitting and weakening the forces of aggression, war 
and reaction, the people's revolutionary struggles against im- 
perialism and its lackeys help the cause of world peace and 
human progress, and therefore help the socialist countries' 
struggle for peaceful coexistence with countries having 
different social systems. Thus, the correct application of 
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries 
is in harmony with the interests of the people's revolutionary 
struggles in all countries. 

However, the socialist countries' struggle for peaceful co- 
existence between countries with different social systems and 
the people's revolution in various countries are two totally 
different things. 

In its letter of June 14 replying to the Central Committee 
of the CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC states: 

285 



... it is one thing to practise peaceful coexistence be- 
tween countries with different social systems. It is absolute- 
ly impermissible and impossible for countries practising 
peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each other's 
social system. The class struggle, the struggle for national 
liberation and the transition from capitalism to socialism in 
various countries are quite another thing. They are all bit- 
ter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at 
changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot re- 
place the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transi- 
tion from capitalism to socialism in any country can only 
be brought about through the proletarian revolution and 
the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country. 

In a class society it is completely wrong to regard peaceful 
coexistence as "the best and the sole acceptable way to solve 
the vitally important problems confronting society" and as the 
"basic law of life for the whole of modern society". This is 
social pacifism which repudiates class struggle. It is an out- 
rageous betrayal of Marxism-Leninism. 

Back in 1946, Comrade Mao Tse-tung differentiated between 
the two problems and explicitly stated that compromise be- 
tween the Soviet Union and the United States, Britain and 
France on certain issues "does not require the people in the 
countries of the capitalist world to follow suit and make com- 
promises at home. The people in those countries will continue 
to wage different struggles in accordance with their different 
conditions." 1 

This is a correct Marxist-Leninist policy. Guided by this 
correct policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung's, the Chinese people 
firmly and determinedly carried the revolution through to the 
end and won the great victory of their revolution. 

Acting against this Marxist-Leninist policy, the leaders of 
the CPSU equate one aspect of the policy to be pursued by 

1 Mao Tse-tung, "Some Points in Appraisal of the Present Interna- 
tional Situation, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, 
p. 87. 

286 



the proletariat in power in its state relations with countries 
having different social systems with the general line of all the 
Communist Parties, and they try to substitute the former for 
the latter, demanding that Communist Parties and revolution- 
ary peoples should all follow what they call the general line 
of peaceful coexistence. Not desiring revolution themselves, 
they forbid others to make it. Not opposing imperialism 
themselves, they forbid others to oppose it. 

This the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
and Khrushchov's recent remarks have strenuously denied. It 
has been asserted that it is "a monstrous slander" to accuse the 
leaders of the CPSU of extending peaceful coexistence to rela- 
tions between the oppressed and oppressor classes and between 
the oppressed and oppressor nations. They have even hypo- 
critically stated that peaceful coexistence "cannot be extended 
to the class struggle against capital within the capitalist coun- 
tries and to national liberation movement". 

But such prevarication is futile. 

We should like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the 
policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes only one aspect of 
the foreign policy of socialist countries, why have you as- 
serted until recently that it represents "the strategic line for 
the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism on 
a world scale"? 1 In requiring the Communist Parties of all 
the capitalist countries and of the oppressed nations to make 
peaceful coexistence their general line, are you not aiming at 
replacing the revolutionary line of the Communist Parties 
with your policy of "peaceful coexistence" and wilfully ap- 
plying that policy to the relations between oppressed and op- 
pressor classes and between oppressed and oppressor nations? 

We should also like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since 
the peoples win victory in their revolutions by relying pri- 
marily on their own struggles, how can such victory be attrib- 



1 "For the Unity and Solidarity of the International Communist Move- 
ment", editorial board article in Pravda, December 6, 1963. 

287 



uted to peaceful coexistence or described as its outcome? Do 
not such allegations of yours mean the subordination of the 
revolutionary struggles of the peoples to your policy of peace- 
ful coexistence? 

We should further like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: 
Economic successes in socialist countries and the victories they 
score in economic competition with capitalist countries un- 
doubtedly play an exemplary role and are an inspiration to op- 
pressed peoples and nations. But how can it be said that so- 
cialism will triumph on a worldwide scale through peaceful 
coexistence and peaceful competition instead of through the 
revolutionary struggles of the peoples? 

The leaders of the CPSU advertise reliance on peaceful co- 
existence and peaceful competition as being enough to "deliver 
a crushing blow to the entire system of capitalist relation- 
ships" and bring about worldwide peaceful transition to 
socialism. This is equivalent to saying that the oppressed 
peoples and nations have no need to wage struggles, make 
revolution and overthrow the reactionary rule of imperialism 
and colonialism and their lackeys, and that they should just 
wait quietly — until the production levels and living standards 
of the Soviet Union outstrip those of the most developed capi- 
talist countries, when the oppressed and exploited slaves 
throughout the world would be able to enter communism to- 
gether with their oppressors and exploiters. Is this not an 
attempt on the part of the leaders of the CPSU to substitute 
what they call peaceful coexistence for the revolutionary strug- 
gles of the peoples and to liquidate such struggles? 

An analysis of these three questions makes it clear that 
our difference with the leaders of the CPSU is a major dif- 
ference of principle. In essence it boils down to this. Our 
policy of peaceful coexistence is Leninist and is based on the 
principle of proletarian internationalism, it contributes to the 
cause of opposing imperialism and defending world peace and 
accords with the interests of the revolutionary struggles of 
the oppressed peoples and nations the world over; whereas 

288 



the so-called general line of peaceful coexistence pursued by 
the leaders of the CPSU is anti-Leninist, it abandons the prin- 
ciple of proletarian internationalism, damages the cause of 
opposing imperialism and defending world peace, and runs 
counter to the interests of the revolutionary struggles of the 
oppressed peoples and nations. 



THE CPSU LEADERS' GENERAL LINE OF 

"PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE" CATERS TO 

U.S. IMPERIALISM 

The general line of peaceful coexistence pursued by the 
leaders of the CPSU is firmly rejected by all Marxist-Leninist 
Parties and revolutionary people but is warmly praised by the 
imperialists. 

The spokesmen of Western monopoly capital make no secret 
of their appreciation of this general line of the leaders of the 
CPSU. They see in Khrushchov "the West's best friend in 
Moscow" 1 and say that "Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev 
acts like an American politicians". 2 They say, "Comrade Khru- 
shchev is considered, as far as the free world is concerned, the 
best Prime Minister the Russians have. He genuinely believes 
in peaceful coexistence." 3 They declare that "this possibility 
of better Soviet-American relations has led to the feeling in 
U.S. State Department circles that, within certain limits, the 
U.S. should facilitate Khrushchev's task". 4 

The imperialists have always been hostile to the socialist 
countries' policy of peaceful coexistence, exclaiming that "the 



'"How Nice Must We Be to Nikita?" in the U.S. magazine Time, 
March 9, 1962. 

2 W. A. Harriman, Television Interview, August 18, 1963. 

3 "Kennedy Helps Khrushchev", in the British magazine Time and 
Tide, April 18-24, 1963. 

4 Agence France Presse dispatch from Washington, July 14, 1963, on 
U.S. government officials' comment on the Open Letter of the CPSU. 

289 



very phrase 'coexistence' is both weird and presumptuous" 
and that "let us relegate to the scrap heap the concept of a 
transitory and uneasy coexistence". 1 Why do they now show 
so much interest in Khrushchov's general line of peaceful co- 
existence? Because the imperialists are clear on its usefulness 
to them. 

The U.S. imperialists have invariably adopted the dual 
tactics of war and peace in order to attain their strategic ob- 
jectives of liquidating the people's revolutions, eliminating the 
socialist camp and dominating the world. When they find the 
international situation growing unfavourable to them, they 
need to resort increasingly to peace tricks while continuing 
their arms expansion and war preparations. 

In 1958 John Foster Dulles proposed that the United 
States should dedicate itself to "a noble strategy" of "peaceful 
triumph." 2 

After assuming office, Kennedy continued and developed 
Dulles' "strategy of peace" and talked a great deal about 
"peaceful coexistence". He said, ". . . we need a much better 
weapon than the H-bomb . . . and that better weapon is peace- 
ful co-operation." 3 

Does this mean that the U.S. imperialists genuinely accept 
peaceful coexistence, or, in the words of the leaders of the 
CPSU, admit "the reasonableness and practicability of peace- 
ful coexistence"? Of course not. 

A little serious study makes it easy to see the real meaning 
and purpose of "peaceful coexistence" as advocated by the 
U.S. imperialists. 

What is its real meaning and purpose? 



1 Former U.S. Under-Secretary of State Douglas Dillon's address on 
U.S. foreign policy, April 20, 1960. 

2 J. F. Dulles, Speech Before the California State Chamber of Com- 
merce, December 4, 1958. 

3 J. F. Kennedy Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 20, 
1963. 

290 



1. In the name of peaceful coexistence, the U.S. imperial- 
ists try to tie the hands of the Soviet Union and the other 
socialist countries and forbid them to support the revolution- 
ary struggles of the people in the capitalist world. 

Dulles said: 

The Soviet Government could end the "cold war", so far 
as it is concerned, if it would free itself from the guiding 
direction of international communism and seek primarily the 
welfare of the Russian nation and people. Also the "cold 
war" would come to an end if international communism 
abandoned its global goals. . . - 1 

Kennedy stated that if U.S. -Soviet relations were to be im- 
proved, the Soviet Union would have to abandon the plan of 
"communizing the entire world" and "look only to its national 
interest and to providing a better life for its people under 
conditions of peace". 2 

Dean Rusk has put the point even more bluntly. "There 
can be no assured and lasting peace until the communist lead- 
ers abandon their goal of a world revolution." He has also 
said that there are "signs of restiveness" among the Soviet 
leaders "about the burdens and risks of their commitments to 
the world communist movement". And he has even asked 
the Soviet leaders to "go on from these, by putting aside the 
illusion of a world communist triumph". 3 

The meaning of these words is only too clear. The U.S. 
imperialists describe the revolutionary struggles by the op- 
pressed peoples and nations in the capitalist world for their 
own emancipation as being the outcome of attempts by the 
socialist countries to "communize the entire world". They 
say to the Soviet leaders: Do you wish to live in peace with 



1 J. F. Dulles, Speech Before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign 
Affairs Committee, January 28, 1959. 

2 J. F. Kennedy, Interview with A. I. Adzhubei, Editor-in-Chief of 
Izvestia, November 25, 1961. 

3 Dean Rusk, Address at the National Convention of the American 
Legion, September 10, 1963. 

291 



the United States? Very well! But on condition that you 
must not support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed 
peoples and nations in the capitalist world and must see to it 
that they will not rise in revolution. According to the wish- 
ful thinking of the U.S. imperialists, this will leave them free 
to stamp out the revolutionary movements in the capitalist 
world and to dominate and enslave its inhabitants, who com- 
prise two-thirds of the world's population. 

2. In the name of peaceful coexistence, the U.S. impe- 
rialists try to push ahead with their policy of "peaceful evolu- 
tion" vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and other socialist countries 
and to restore capitalism there. 

Dulles said, "The renunciation of force . . . implies, not the 
maintenance of the status quo, but peaceful change." 1 "It is 
not sufficient to be defensive. Freedom must be a positive 
force that will penetrate." 2 "We hope to encourage an evolu- 
tion within the Soviet world." 3 

Eisenhower asserted that whatever the United States could 
do by peaceful means would be done, "in order that those 
people who are held in bondage by a tyrannical dictatorship 
might finally have the right to determine their own fates by 
their own free votes". 4 

Kennedy said that the "task is to do all in our power to 
see that the changes taking place ... in the Soviet empire, on 
all continents — lead to more freedom for more men and to 
world peace". 5 He declared that he would "pursue a policy of 
patiently encouraging freedom and carefully pressuring 



1 J. F. Dulles, Address to the Award Dinner of the New York State 
Bar Association, January 31, 1959. 

2 J. F. Dulles, Speech Before the California State Chamber of Com- 
merce, December 4, 1958. 

3 J. F. Dulles, Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives 
Foreign Affairs Committee, January 28, 1959. 

4 D. D. Eisenhower, Speech at the Polish-American Congress at 
Chicago, September 30, 1960. 

5 J. F. Kennedy, The Strategy of Peace, Harper & Brothers, New 
York, 1960, p. 199. 

292 



tyranny" towards the socialist countries in Eastern Europe, so 
as to provide "free choice" for the people of those countries. 1 

The meaning of these words, too, is very clear. The U.S. 
imperialists malign the socialist system as "dictatorial" and 
"tyrannical" and describe the restoration of capitalism as 
"free choice". They say to the Soviet leaders: Do you wish 
to live in peace with the United States? Very well! But this 
does not mean we recognize the status quo in the socialist 
countries; on the contrary, capitalism must be restored there. 
In other words, the U.S. imperialists will never reconcile 
themselves to the fact that one-third of the world's population 
has taken the socialist road, and they will always attempt to 
destroy all the socialist countries. 

Briefly, what the U.S. imperialists call peaceful coexistence 
amounts to this: no people living under imperialist domination 
and enslavement may strive for liberation, all who have al- 
ready emancipated themselves must again come under imperi- 
alist domination and enslavement, and the whole world must 
be incorporated into the American "world community of free 
nations". 

It is easy to see why the general line of peaceful coexistence 
of the leaders of the CPSU is exactly to the taste of U.S. im- 
perialism. 

On the pretext of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the 
CPSU do their best to curry favour with U.S. imperialism and 
constantly proclaim that the representatives of U.S. imperial- 
ism "are concerned about peace"; this exactly serves its fraud- 
ulent peace policy. 

On the pretext of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the 
CPSU apply the policy of peaceful coexistence to the relations 
between oppressed and oppressor classes and between op- 
pressed and oppressor nations, and they oppose revolution and 
try to liquidate it; this exactly suits the U.S. imperialists' 



1 J. F. Kennedy, Speech at the Polish-American Congress at Chicago, 
October 1, 1960. 

293 



requirement that the socialist countries should not support 
peoples revolutions in the capitalist world. 

On the pretext of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the 
CPSU try to substitute international class collaboration for 
international class struggle and advocate "all-round co-opera- 
tion" between socialism and imperialism, thus opening the 
door to imperialist penetration of the socialist countries; this 
exactly suits the needs of the U.S. imperialist policy of "peace- 
ful evolution". 

The imperialists have always been our best teachers by neg- 
ative example. Let us here cite extracts from two speeches 
by Dulles after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. 

He stated: 

... I had said . . . that there was evidence within the 
Soviet Union of forces toward greater liberalism. . . . 

... if these forces go on and continue to gather momen- 
tum within the Soviet Union, then we can think, and reasona- 
bly hope, I said within a decade or perhaps a generation, that 
we would have what is the great goal of our policy, that is, 
a Russia which is governed by people who are responsive to 
the wishes of the Russian people, who had given up their 
predatory world-wide ambitions to rule and who conform 
to the principles of civilized nations and such principles as 
are embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. 1 

He also stated: 

. . . the long-range prospect — indeed, I would say the 
long-range certainty — is that there will be an evolution 
of the present policies of the Soviet rulers so that they will 
become more nationalist and less internationalist. 2 

Apparently, Dulles' ghost has been haunting the betrayers 
of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and 

1 J. F. Dulles, Press Conference, May 15, 1956. 

2 J. F. Dulles, Press Conference, October 28, 1958. 

294 



they have become so obsessed with the so-called general line 
of peaceful coexistence that they do not pause to consider how 
well their actions accord with the desires of U.S. imperialism. 



SOVIET-U.S. COLLABORATION IS THE HEART AND 

SOUL OF THE CPSU LEADERS' GENERAL LINE 

OF "PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE" 

While harping on peaceful coexistence in recent years, the 
leaders of the CPSU have in fact not only violated the principle 
of proletarian internationalism but even failed to conform to 
the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in their attitude 
towards China and a number of other socialist countries. To 
put it plainly, their ceaseless advocacy of peaceful coexistence 
as the general line of their foreign policy amounts to a demand 
that all the socialist countries and the Communist Parties 
must submit to their long-cherished dream of Soviet-U.S. 
collaboration. 

The heart and soul of the general line of peaceful coexist- 
ence pursued by the leaders of the CPSU is Soviet-U.S. col- 
laboration for the domination of the world. 

Just look at the extraordinary statements they have made: 

"The two greatest modern powers, the Soviet Union and 
the United States, have left far behind any other country in 
the world." 1 

"Each of these two powers is leading a large group of nations 
— the Soviet Union leading the world socialist system and the 
United States the capitalist camp." 2 

"We [the Soviet Union and the United States] are the strong- 
est countries in the world and if we unite for peace there can 



'N. N. Yakovlev, "After 30 Years . . .", a pamphlet written for the 
30th anniversary of Soviet-American diplomatic relations. 
2 Ibid. 

295 



be no war. Then if any madman wanted war, we would but 
have to shake our fingers to warn him off." 1 

". . . if there is agreement between N. S. Khrushchov, the 
head of the Soviet Government, and John Kennedy, the Presi- 
dent of the United States, there will be a solution of interna- 
tional problems on which mankind's destinies depend." 2 

We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the 
1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement say clearly that 
U.S. imperialism is the sworn enemy of the people of the world 
and the main force making for aggression and war, how can 
you "unite" with the main enemy of world peace to "safe- 
guard peace"? 

We would like to ask them: Can it be that more than a 
hundred countries and over three thousand million people 
have no right to decide their own destiny? Must they submit 
to the manipulations of the two "giants", the two "greatest 
powers", the Soviet Union and the United States? Isn't this 
arrogant nonsense of yours an expression of great-power chau- 
vinism and power politics pure and simple? 

We would also like to ask them: Do you really imagine 
that if only the Soviet Union and the United States reached 
agreement, if only the two "great men" reached agreement, 
the destiny of mankind would be decided and all international 
issues settled? You are wrong, hopelessly wrong. From time 
immemorial, things have never happened in this way, and they 
are much less likely to do so in the nineteen sixties. The 
world today is full of complex contradictions, the contradiction 
between the socialist and the imperialist camps, the contradic- 
tion between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capital- 
ist countries, the contradiction between the oppressed nations 
and imperialism, and the contradictions among the imperial- 
ist countries and among the monopoly capitalist groups in, 



1 N. S. Khrushchov Interview with the U.S. Correspondent C. L. Sulz- 
berger, September 5, 1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961. 

2 A. A. Gromyko, Speech at the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the 
USSR, December 13, 1962. 

296 



the imperialist countries. Would these contradictions disap- 
pear once the Soviet Union and the United States reached 
agreement? 

The only country the leaders of the CPSU look up to is the 
United States. In their pursuit of Soviet-U.S. collaboration, 
they do not scruple to betray the Soviet people's true allies, 
including their class brothers and all the oppressed peoples 
and nations still living under the imperialist-capitalist system. 

The leaders of the CPSU are trying hard to wreck the so- 
cialist camp. They use every kind of lie and slander against the 
Chinese Communist Party and exert political and economic 
pressure on China. As for socialist Albania, nothing short of 
its destruction would satisfy them. Hand in hand with U.S. 
imperialism, they brought pressure to bear upon revolutionary 
Cuba, making demands on it at the expense of its sovereignty 
and dignity. 

The leaders of the CPSU are trying hard to sabotage the 
revolutionary struggles of the peoples against imperialism and 
its lackeys. They are acting as preachers of social reformism 
and are sapping the revolutionary fighting will of the prole- 
tariat and its political party in various countries. To cater to 
the needs of imperialism, they are undermining the national 
liberation movement and becoming more and more shameless 
apologists of U.S. neo-colonialism. 

What do the leaders of the CPSU get from U.S. imperialism 
in return for all their strenuous efforts and for the high price 
they pay in pursuit of Soviet-U.S. collaboration? 

Since 1959, Khrushchov has become obsessed with summit 
meetings between the Soviet Union and the United States. He 
has had many fond dreams and spread many illusions about 
them. He has extolled Eisenhower as "a big man" who "un- 
derstands big politics". 1 He has enthusiastically praised Ken- 
nedy as one who "understands the great responsibility that 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Luncheon Given in His Honour by 
the Mayor of New York, September 17, 1959. 

297 



lies with the governments of two such powerful states". 1 The 
leaders of the CPSU made a big fuss about the so-called spirit 
of Camp David and proclaimed the Vienna meeting to be "an 
a event of historic significance". The Soviet press claimed that 
once the heads of the Soviet Union and the United States sat 
at the same table, history would arrive at a "new turning 
point", and that a handshake between the two "great men" 
would usher in a "new era" in international relations. 

But how does U.S. imperialism treat the leaders of the 
CPSU? A little over a month after the Camp David talks, 
Eisenhower declared, "I wasn't aware of any spirit of Camp 
David." And seven months after the talks he sent a U-2 spy 
plane to intrude into the Soviet Union, thus wrecking the four- 
power summit conference. Not long after the Vienna meet- 
ing, Kennedy put forward the following insolent conditions for 
twenty years of peace between the Soviet Union and the United 
States: no support by the Soviet Union for any people's 
revolutionary struggles, and the restoration of capitalism in 
the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. A year or more 
after the Vienna meeting Kennedy ordered the piratical mili- 
tary blockade of Cuba and created the Caribbean crisis. 

Searching high and low among the quick and the dead, where 
can one find the much vaunted "spirit of Camp David", "turn- 
ing point in the history of mankind" and "new era in interna- 
tional relations"? 

After the signing of the tripartite treaty on the partial 
nuclear test ban, the leaders of the CPSU gave great publicity 
to the so-called spirit of Moscow. They spoke of the need 
to "strike while the iron is hot", asserted that "all the favour- 
able conditions are there" for the Soviet Union and the United 
States to reach further agreements, and declared that it was 
bad to take the attitude that "time can wait" or "there is no 
hurry". 2 

1 N. S. Khrushchov, Radio and Television Speech, June 15, 1961. 

2 "Time Cannot Wait", article by observer in Izvestia, August 21, 1963. 

298 



What is the "spirit of Moscow"? Let us look at recent 
events. 

To create more of an atmosphere of "Soviet-U.S. co-opera- 
tion", the leaders of the CPSU held a rally in Moscow in cele- 
bration of the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of 
diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the United 
States. At the same time, they sent a cultural delegation to 
the United States for celebrations there. But what came of 
the enthusiasm of the leaders of the CPSU? The entire 
staff of the U.S. Embassy in the Soviet Union refused to attend 
the Moscow rally, and the U.S. State Department issued a 
special memorandum asking the American public to boycott 
the Soviet cultural delegation, whom they denounced as "ex- 
tremely dangerous and suspicious people". 

While the leaders of the CPSU were advocating "Soviet- 
U.S. co-operation", the United States sent the agent Barghoorn 
to carry on activities in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Gov- 
ernment very properly arrested this agent. But, after Ken- 
nedy made the threat that the success of the wheat deal be- 
tween the United States and the Soviet Union "depends upon 
a reasonable atmosphere in both countries", which he said had 
been "badly damaged by the Barghoorn arrest", the Soviet 
Government hurriedly released this U.S. agent without any 
trial, on the grounds of "the concern of the U.S. high officials 
over F. C. Barghoorn's fate", over the fate of an agent who 
the investigation confirmed . . . had been engaged in intel- 
ligence activities against the U.S.S.R.". 

Are all these manifestations of the "spirit of Moscow"? If 
so, it is indeed very sad. 

Moscow! Bright capital of the first socialist country and 
glorious name cherished by so many millions of people 
throughout the world since the Great October Revolution! 
Now this name is being used by the leaders of the CPSU to 
cover up their foul practice of collaboration with the U.S. im- 
perialists. What an unprecedented shame! 

299 



All too often have the leaders of the CPSU said fine things 
about the U.S. imperialists and begged favours from them; 
all too often have they lost their temper with fraternal coun- 
tries and Parties and put pressure on them; all too many are 
the tricks and deceptions they have practised on the revolu- 
tionary people in various countries — solely in order to beg 
for "friendship" and "trust" from U.S. imperialism. But 
"while the drooping flowers pine for love, the heartless brook 
babbles on". All that the leaders of the CPSU have received 
from the U.S. imperialists is humiliation, again humiliation, 
always humiliation! 



A FEW WORDS OF ADVICE TO THE LEADERS 
OF THE CPSU 

During the bitter days of resistance to armed imperialist 
intervention and amidst the raging fires of the Patriotic War, 
was there ever an occasion when the great Soviet people under 
the leadership of Lenin and Stalin bowed to difficulties? Did 
they ever kneel before the enemy? Today, the world situa- 
tion is most favourable to revolution and socialism is stronger 
than ever, while imperialism has never been in such difficul- 
ties; yet how ignominiously has the first socialist country, 
the state founded by Lenin, been bullied by U.S. imperialism 
and how grossly has the socialist camp been disgraced by 
the leaders of the CPSU! How is it possible for us, for any 
Marxist-Leninists or revolutionary people, not to feel distress? 

Here we should like to offer sincere advice to the leaders 
of the CPSU. 

The United States, the most ferocious imperialist country, 
has the mad strategic aim of conquering the world. It is 
frantically suppressing the revolutionary struggles of the op- 
pressed peoples and nations and has openly declared its inten- 
tion of bringing Eastern Europe back into the so-called world 
community of free nations. How can you imagine that the 

300 



heaviest blows of the U.S. imperialists in pursuit of their 
aggressive plans for conquering the whole world will fall on 
others and not on the Soviet Union? 

The United States is an imperialist country and the Soviet 
Union a socialist country. How can you expect "all-round 
co-operation" between two countries with entirely different 
social systems? 

There is mutual deception and rivalry even between the 
United States and the other imperialist powers, and the United 
States will not be satisfied until it has trampled them under- 
foot. How then can you imagine that the imperialist United 
States will live in harmony with the socialist Soviet Union? 

Leading comrades of the CPSU! Just think the matter 
over soberly. Can U.S. imperialism be depended upon when 
a storm breaks in the world? No! The U.S. imperialists are 
undependable, as are all imperialists and reactionaries. The 
only dependable allies of the Soviet Union are the fraternal 
countries of the socialist camp, the fraternal Marxist-Leninist 
Parties and all oppressed peoples and nations. 

The laws of historical development operate independently 
of any individual's will. No one can possibly prevent the 
growth of the socialist camp and the revolutionary move- 
ment of the oppressed peoples and nations, let alone destroy 
them. He who betrays the people of the socialist camp and 
the world and dreams of dominating the globe by colluding 
with U.S. imperialism is bound to end up badly. It is very 
mistaken and dangerous for the leaders of the CPSU to do 
so. 

It is not yet too late for the leaders of the CPSU to rein 
in at the brink. It is high time for them to discard their 
general line of peaceful coexistence and return to Lenin's 
policy of peaceful coexistence, to the road of Marxism-Lenin- 
ism and proletarian internationalism. 



THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU 

ARE THE GREATEST SPLITTERS 

OF OUR TIMES 

Seventh Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
(People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(February 4, 1964) 



NEVER before has the unity of the international communist 
movement been so gravely threatened as it is today when 
we are witnessing a deluge of modern revisionist ideology. 
Both internationally and inside individual Parties, fierce strug- 
gles are going on between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. 
The international communist movement is confronted with an 
unprecedentedly serious danger of a split. 

It is the urgent task of the Communists, the proletariat and 
the revolutionary people of the world to defend the unity of 
the socialist camp and of the international communist move- 
ment. 

The Communist Party of China has made consistent and 
unremitting efforts to defend and strengthen the unity of the 
socialist camp and the international communist movement in 
accordance with Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary 
principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. 
It has been and remains the unswerving position of the 
Chinese Communist Party to uphold principle, uphold unity, 
eliminate differences and strengthen the struggle against our 
common enemy. 

Ever since they embarked on the path of revisionism, the 
leaders of the CPSU have tirelessly professed their devotion 
to the unity of the international communist movement. Of 
late, they have been particularly active in crying for "unity". 
This calls to mind what Engels said ninety years ago. "One 
must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for 'unity.' 
Those who have this word most often on their lips are the ones 
who sow the most dissension. . . ." ". . . the biggest sectarians 
and the biggest brawlers and rogues at times shout loudest 
for unity." 1 

1 "Engels to A. Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Correspondence of 
Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 345. 

305 



While presenting themselves as champions of unity, the 
leaders of the CPSU are trying to pin the label of splittism on 
the Chinese Communist Party. In its Open Letter the Cen- 
tral Committee of the CPSU says: 

The Chinese leaders are undermining the unity not only 
of the socialist camp but of the entire world communist 
movement, trampling on the principles of proletarian inter- 
nationalism and grossly violating accepted standards of re- 
lations between fraternal parties. 

And the subsequent articles published in the Soviet press 
have been condemning the Chinese Communists as "sectarians" 
and "splitters". 

But what are the facts? Who is undermining the unity of 
the socialist camp? Who is undermining the unity of the in- 
ternational communist movement? Who is trampling on the 
principles of proletarian internationalism? And who is grossly 
violating the accepted standards of relations between fraternal 
Parties? In other words, who are the real, out-and-out split- 
ters? 

Only when these questions are properly answered can we 
find the way to defend and strengthen the unity of the socialist 
camp and the international communist movement and over- 
come the danger of a split. 



A REVIEW OF HISTORY 

In order to gain a clear understanding of the nature of split- 
tism in the present international communist movement and 
to struggle against it in the correct way, let us look back on 
the history of the international communist movement over 
the past century or so. 

The struggle between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism 
and between the forces defending unity and those creating 
splits runs through the history of the development of the 

306 



communist movement. This is the case both in individual 
countries and on the international plane. In this prolonged 
struggle, Marx, Engels and Lenin expounded the true essence 
of proletarian unity on a theoretical level and, by their deeds, 
set brilliant examples in combating opportunism, revisionism 
and splittism. 

In 1847 Marx and Engels founded the earliest international 
working-class organization — the Communist League. In the 
Communist Manifesto, which they wrote as the programme 
of the League, Marx and Engels advanced the militant call, 
"Workers of All Countries, Unite!" and gave a systematic and 
profound exposition of scientific communism, thus laying the 
ideological basis for the unity of the international proletariat. 

Throughout their lives Marx and Engels worked unremit- 
tingly for this principled unity of the international proletariat. 

In 1864 they established the First International, the Inter- 
national Working Men's Association, to unite the workers' 
movements of all countries. Throughout the period of the 
First International they waged principled struggles against 
the Bakuninists, Proudhonists, Blanquists, Lassalleans, etc., 
the fiercest struggle being that against the Bakuninist splitters. 

The Bakuninists attacked Marx's theory from the very be- 
ginning. They charged Marx with wanting to make his "par- 
ticular programme and personal doctrine dominant in the 
International". In fact, however, it was they who tried to im- 
pose the dogmas of their sect on the International and to re- 
place the programme of the International with Bakunin's 
opportunist programme. They resorted to one intrigue after 
another, lined up a "majority" by hook or by crook and en- 
gaged in sectarian and divisive activities. 

To defend the genuine unity of the international proletariat, 
Marx and Engels took an uncompromising and principled stand 
against the open challenge of the Bakuninist splitters to the 
First International. In 1872 the Bakuninists who persisted 
in their splitting activities were expelled from the Interna- 

307 



tional at its Hague Congress, in which Marx personally par- 
ticipated. 

Engels said that if the Marxists had adopted an unprincipled 
and conciliatory attitude towards the divisive activities of the 
Bakuninists at the Hague, it would have had grave conse- 
quences for the international working-class movement. He 
stated, "Then the International would indeed have gone to 
pieces — gone to pieces through 'unity'!" 1 

Led by Marx and Engels, the First International fought 
against opportunism and splittism and laid the basis for the 
supremacy of Marxism in the international working-class 
movement. 

With the announcement of the end of the First-Interna- 
tional in 1876 there began the successive establishment of mass 
socialist workers' parties in many countries. Marx and Engels 
followed the establishment and development of these parties 
with close attention in the hope that they would be established 
and developed on the basis of scientific communism. 

Marx and Engels devoted particular attention and concern 
to the German Social-Democratic Party which then occupied 
an important position in the working-class movement in 
Europe. On many occasions, they sharply criticized the Ger- 
man Party for its rotten spirit of compromise with opportun- 
ism in the pursuit of "unity". 

In 1875 they criticized the German Social-Democratic Party 
for its union with the Lassalleans at the expense of principle 
and for the resultant Gotha Programme. Marx pointed out 
that this union was "bought too dearly" and that the Gotha 
Programme was "a thoroughly objectionable programme that 
demoralizes the Party". 2 Engels pointed out that it was a 
"bending of the knee to Lassalleanism on the part of the whole 



'"Engels to A. Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Correspondence of 
Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 346. 

2 "Marx to W. Bracke, May 5, 1875", Selected Correspondence of Marx 
and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, pp. 360, 361. 

308 



German socialist proletariat", adding, "I am convinced that 
a union on this basis will not last a year." 1 

In criticizing the Gotha Programme, Marx put forward the 
well-known principle that for Marxists "there would be no 
haggling about principles". 2 

Later Marx and Engels again sharply criticized the leaders 
of the German Party for tolerating the activities of the oppor- 
tunists inside the Party. Marx said that these opportunists 
tried "to replace its materialistic basis ... by modern mythol- 
ogy with its goddesses of Justice, Liberty, Equality, and 
Fraternity" 3 and that this was a "vulgarization of Party and 
theory". 4 In their "Circular Letter" to the leaders of the 
German Party, Marx and Engels wrote: 

For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle 
as the immediate driving power of history, and in particular 
the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as 
the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is, there- 
fore, impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish 
to expunge this class struggle from the movement. 5 

Founded under Engels' influence in 1889, the Second In- 
ternational existed in a period when capitalism was develop- 
ing "peacefully". While Marxism became widespread and 
the Communist Manifesto became the common programme of 
tens of millions of workers everywhere during this period, 
the socialist parties in many countries blindly worshipped 



1 "Engels to A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875", Selected Correspondence 
of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 358. 

2 "Marx to W. Bracke, May 5, 1875", Selected Correspondence of Marx 
and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 361. 

3 "Marx to F. A. Sorge, October 19, 1877", Selected Correspondence 
of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 376. 

4 "Marx to F. A. Sorge, September 19, 1879", Selected Correspondence 
of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 396. 

5 "Marx and Engels to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others 
('Circular Letter'), September 17-18, 1879", Selected Correspondence 
of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 395. 

309 



bourgeois legality instead of utilizing it and became legalists, 
thus opening the floodgates for opportunism. 

Hence, throughout the period of the Second International, 
the international working-class movement was divided into 
two main groups, the revolutionary Marxists and the pseudo- 
Marxian opportunists. 

Engels waged irreconcilable struggles against the opportun- 
ists. He refuted with particular sharpness their fallacies on 
the peaceful evolution of capitalism into socialism. He said 
of those opportunists who posed as Marxists that Marx "would 
repeat to these gentlemen what Heine had said of his imita- 
tors: I sowed dragons but I reaped fleas". 1 

After the death of Engels in 1895, these fleas came out for 
the open and systematic revision of Marxism and gradually 
took over the leadership of the Second International. 

As the outstanding revolutionary in the international 
working-class movement after Engels, the great Lenin shoul- 
dered the heavy responsibility of defending Marxism and op- 
posing the revisionism of the Second International. 

When the revisionists of the Second International howled 
that Marxism was "incomplete" and "outmoded", Lenin 
solemnly declared, "We take our stand entirely on the Marxist 
theoretical position", because revolutionary theory "unites all 
socialists". 2 

Above all, Lenin fought to create a Marxist party in Russia. 
In order to build a party of the new type, differing funda- 
mentally from the opportunist parties of the Second Inter- 
national, he waged uncompromising struggles against the 
various anti-Marxist factions inside the Russian Social- 
Democratic Labour Party. 



1 "Engels' Letter to Paul Lafargue, October 27, 1890", quoted in Marx 
and Engels on Literature and Art, Fr. ed., Edition Sociales, Paris, 1954, 
p. 258. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Our Programme", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1960, Vol. IV, pp. 210,211. 

310 



Like other parties of the Second International the Russian 
Social-Democratic Labour Party had a revolutionary as well 
as an opportunist group. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin con- 
stituted the former and the Mensheviks the latter. 

The Bolsheviks led by Lenin conducted prolonged theoret- 
ical and political struggles against the Mensheviks in order 
to safeguard the unity of the proletarian party and the purity 
of its ranks, and finally in 1912 expelled the Mensheviks for 
their persistence in opportunism and splitting activities. 

All the opportunist factions abused Lenin in the most vicious 
language. They tried by every means to label him a splitter. 
Lining up with all the anti-Leninist factions and raising the 
banner of "non-factionalism", Trotsky wantonly attacked the 
Bolshevik Party and Lenin, whom he called a "usurper" and 
"splitter". Lenin replied that Trotsky, who paraded as "non- 
factional", was "a representative of the 'worst remnants of 
factionalism' " J and "the worst splitters". 2 

Lenin put it clearly, "Unity is a great thing and a great 
slogan. But what the workers' cause needs is the unity of 
Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and dis- 
torters of Marxism." 3 

Lenin's struggle against the Mensheviks was of great inter- 
national significance, for Menshevism was a Russian form and 
variant of the revisionism of the Second International and 
was supported by the revisionist leaders of the Second Inter- 
national. 

While combating the Mensheviks, Lenin also waged a series 
of struggles against the revisionism of the Second Interna- 
tional. 

Before World War I, Lenin criticized the revisionists of the 
Second International on the theoretical and political plane 

1 V. I. Lenin, "Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 251. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Break-up of the 'August' Bloc", Collected Works, 
Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 161. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "Unity", Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, 
Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 232. 

311 



and fought them face to face at the Stuttgart and Copenhagen 
Congresses. 

When World War I broke out, the leaders of the Second 
International openly betrayed the proletariat. Serving the 
imperialists' interests, they urged the proletarians of different 
countries to slaughter each other and thus brought about a 
most serious split in the international proletariat. As Rosa 
Luxemburg said, the revisionists turned the previous proud 
slogan of "Workers of All Countries, Unite!" into the com- 
mand on the battlefield, "Workers of All Countries, Slay One 
Another!" 1 

The Social-Democratic Party of Germany, Marx's native 
land, was then the most powerful and influential party in the 
Second International. It was the first to side with the im- 
perialists of its own country, and thus became the arch-criminal 
splitting the international working-class movement. 

At this critical juncture, Lenin stepped forward to fight res- 
olutely in defence of the unity of the international proletariat. 

In his article "The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy 
in the European War" circulated in August 1914, Lenin pro- 
claimed the collapse of the Second International and sternly 
condemned most of its leaders, and in particular those of the 
German Social-Democratic Party, for their overt betrayal of 
socialism. 

In view of the fact that the revisionists of the Second In- 
ternational had turned their secret alliance with the bour- 
geoisie into an open alliance and that they had made the split 
in the international working-class movement irrevocable, 
Lenin stated: 

It is impossible to carry out the tasks of Socialism at the 
present time, it is impossible to achieve real international 
unity of the workers, without a determined rupture with 



1 "Either — Or", Selected Speeches and Writings of Rosa Luxemburg, 
Ger. ed., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1951, Vol. II, p. 534. 

312 



opportunism and explaining to the masses the inevitability 
of its bankruptcy. 1 

For this reason, Lenin staunchly supported the Marxists in 
breaking with the opportunists in many European countries 
and boldly called for the establishment of a third International 
to replace the bankrupt Second International so as to rebuild 
the revolutionary unity of the international proletariat. 

The Third International was founded in March 1919. It 
inherited the positive achievements of the Second Interna- 
tional and discarded its opportunist, social chauvinist, bour- 
geois and petty-bourgeois rubbish. Thus it enabled the rev- 
olutionary cause of the international proletariat to grow both 
in breadth and depth. 

Lenin's theory and practice carried Marxism to a new stage 
in its development — the stage of Leninism. On the basis of 
Marxism-Leninism, the unity of the international proletariat 
and the international communist movement was further 
strengthened and expanded. 



EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS 

What does the history of the development of the interna- 
tional communist movement demonstrate? 

First, it demonstrates that like everything else, the inter- 
national working-class movement tends to divide itself in two. 
The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie 
is inevitably reflected in the communist ranks. It is inevitable 
that opportunism of one kind or another should arise in the 
course of the development of the communist movement, that 
opportunists should engage in anti-Marxist-Leninist splitting 
activities and that Marxist-Leninists should wage struggles 
against opportunism and splittism. It is precisely through 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The War and Russian Social-Democracy", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 403. 

313 



this struggle of opposites that Marxism-Leninism and the in- 
ternational working-class movement have developed. And it 
is also through this struggle that the international working- 
class movement has strengthened and consolidated its unity on 
the basis of Marxism-Leninism. 
Engels said: 

The movement of the proletariat necessarily passes 
through different stages of development; at every stage part 
of the people get stuck and do not join in the further 
advance; and this alone explains why it is that actually the 
"solidarity of the proletariat" is everywhere being realized 
in different party groupings, which carry on life-and-death 
feuds with one another. . . . J 

This is exactly what happened. The Communist League, 
the First International and the Second International, all of 
which were originally unified, divided in two in the course 
of their development and became two conflicting parts. Each 
time the international struggle against opportunism and split- 
tism carried the international working-class movement for- 
ward to a new stage and enabled it to forge a firmer and 
broader unity on a new basis. The victory of the October 
Revolution and the founding of the Third International were 
the greatest achievements in the struggle against the Second 
International's revisionism and splittism. 

Unity, struggle or even splits, and a new unity on a new 
basis — such is the dialectics of the development of the inter- 
national working-class movement. 

Secondly, the history of the international communist move- 
ment demonstrates that in every period the struggle between 
the defenders of unity and the creators of splits is in essence 
one between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism-revisionism, 
between the upholders of Marxism and the traitors to Marx- 
ism. 



'"Engels to A. Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Correspondence of 
Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 347. 

314 



Both internationally and in individual countries, genuine 
proletarian unity is possible only on the basis of Marxism- 
Leninism. 

Both internationally and in individual countries, wherever 
opportunism and revisionism are rampant, a split becomes in- 
evitable in the proletarian ranks. Every split in the com- 
munist movement is invariably caused by the opportunist- 
revisionist opposition to and betrayal of Marxism-Leninism. 

What is splittism? 

It means a split with Marxism-Leninism. Anyone who op- 
poses and betrays Marxism-Leninism and undermines the basis 
of proletarian unity is a splitter. 

It means a split with the revolutionary proletarian party. 
Anyone who persists in a revisionist line and turns a revolu- 
tionary proletarian party into a reformist bourgeois party is 
a splitter. 

It means a split with the revolutionary proletariat and the 
broad masses of the working people. Anyone who follows a 
programme and line running counter to the revolutionary will 
and fundamental interests of the proletariat and the working 
people is a splitter. 

Lenin said, "Where the majority of the class-conscious work- 
ers have rallied around precise and definite decisions there is 
unity of opinion and action," 1 while opportunism "is, in fact, 
schism, in that it most unblushingly thwarts the will of the 
majority of the workers." 2 

By disrupting proletarian unity, splittism serves the bour- 
geoisie and meets its needs. It is the consistent policy of the 
bourgeoisie to create splits within the ranks of the proletariat. 
Its most sinister method of doing so is to buy over or cultivate 
agents within the proletarian ranks. And agents of the bour- 
geoisie are exactly what the opportunists and revisionists are. 
So far from seeking to unite the proletariat in the fight against 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 255. 

2 Ibid., p. 258. 

315 



the bourgeoisie, they want the proletariat to co-operate with 
it. This was what the revisionists of the Second International, 
such as Bernstein and Kautsky, did. At a time when the 
imperialists were most afraid that the proletariat of all coun- 
tries would unite to turn the imperialist war into civil wars, 
they came forward to create a split in the international 
working-class movement and advocate co-operation between 
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. 

The splitters in the communist ranks are those who, to meet 
the needs of the bourgeoisie, split with Marxism-Leninism, 
with the revolutionary proletarian party and with the revolu- 
tionary proletariat and the broad masses of the labouring peo- 
ple; and they remain splitters even when for a time they are 
in the majority or hold the leading posts. 

In the days of the Second International, the revisionists rep- 
resented by Bernstein and Kautsky were in the majority, 
and the Marxists represented by Lenin were in the minority. 
Yet obviously it was Bernstein, Kautsky and other opportun- 
ists who were the splitters, and not revolutionaries like Lenin. 

In 1904 the Mensheviks were the splitters although they 
held leading positions which they had usurped in the central 
organs of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Lenin 
pointed out at the time, "The leading centres (the Central 
Organ, the Central Committee, and the Council) have broken 
with the Party," 1 and "the centres have put themselves out- 
side the Party. There is no middle ground; one is either with 
the centres or with the Party." 2 

In brief, opportunism and revisionism are the political and 
ideological roots of splittism. And splittism is the organiza- 
tional manifestation of opportunism and revisionism. It can 
also be said that opportunism and revisionism are splittism 
as well as sectarianism. The revisionists are the greatest and 
vilest splitters and sectarians in the communist movement. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "A Letter to the Zurich Group of Bolsheviks", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. VIII, p. 63. 

2 Ibid., p. 64. 

316 



Thirdly, the history of the international communist move- 
ment demonstrates that proletarian unity has been consoli- 
dated and has developed through struggle against opportunism, 
revisionism and splittism. The struggle for unity is insepa- 
rably connected with the struggle for principle. 

The unity the proletariat requires is class unity, revolution- 
ary unity, unity against the common enemy and for the great 
goal of communism. The unity of the international proleta- 
riat has its theoretical and political basis in Marxism-Leninism. 
Only when it has theoretical and political unity can the inter- 
national proletariat have organizational cohesion and unity of 
action. 

The genuine revolutionary unity of the proletariat can be 
attained only by upholding principle and upholding Marxism- 
Leninism. Unity bought by forsaking principles and by wal- 
lowing in the mire with opportunists ceases to be proletarian 
unity; instead, as Lenin said, it "means in practice unity of 
the proletariat with the national bourgeoisie and a split in the 
international proletariat, unity of lackeys and a split among 
the revolutionists". 1 

He also pointed out that "as the bourgeoisie will not die 
until it is overthrown", so the opportunist current bribed and 
supported by the bourgeoisie "will not die if it is not 'killed', 
i.e., overthrown, deprived of every influence among the So- 
cialist proletariat". Hence, it is necessary to wage "a mer- 
ciless struggle against the current of opportunism". 2 

Faced with the challenge of the opportunist-revisionists 
who are openly splitting the international communist move- 
ment, the Marxist-Leninists must make no compromise in 
matters of principle, but must resolutely combat this splittism. 
This is an invaluable behest of Marx, Engels and Lenin, as 



'V. I. Lenin, "The Honest Voice of a French Socialist", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII, 
p. 329. 

2 Ibid. 

317 



well as the only correct way to safeguard the unity of the 
international communist movement. 



THE GREATEST SPLITTERS OF OUR TIMES 

The events of recent years show that the leaders of the 
CPSU headed by Khrushchov have become the chief repre- 
sentatives of modern revisionism as well as the greatest split- 
ters in the international communist movement. 

Between the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, the 
leaders of the CPSU developed a rounded system of revision- 
ism. They put forward a revisionist line which contravenes 
the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat, a line which consists of "peaceful coexistence", "peace- 
ful competition", "peaceful transition", "a state of the whole 
people" and "a party of the entire people". They have tried 
to impose this revisionist line on all fraternal Parties as a 
substitute for the common line of the international communist 
movement which was laid down at the meetings of fraternal 
Parties in 1957 and 1960. And they have attacked anyone 
who perseveres in the Marxist-Leninist line and resists their 
revisionist line. 

The leaders of the CPSU have themselves undermined the 
basis of the unity of the international communist movement 
and created the present grave danger of a split by betraying 
Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and push- 
ing their revisionist and divisive line. 

Far from working to consolidate and expand the socialist 
camp, the leaders of the CPSU have endeavoured to split 
and disintegrate it. They have thus made a mess of the splendid 
socialist camp. 

They have violated the principles guiding relations among 
fraternal countries as laid down in the Declaration and the 
Statement, pursued a policy of great-power chauvinism and 

318 



national egoism towards fraternal socialist countries and thus 
disrupted the unity of the socialist camp. 

They have arbitrarily infringed the sovereignty of fraternal 
countries, interfered in their internal affairs, carried on 
subversive activities and striven in every way to control 
fraternal countries. 

In the name of the "international division of labour", the 
leaders of the CPSU oppose the adoption by fraternal countries 
of the policy of building socialism by their own efforts and 
developing their economies on an independent basis, and at- 
tempt to turn them into economic appendages. They have tried 
to force those fraternal countries which are comparatively 
backward economically to abandon industrialization and be- 
come their sources of raw materials and markets for surplus 
products. 

The leaders of the CPSU are quite unscrupulous in their 
pursuit of the policy of great-power chauvinism. They have 
constantly brought political, economic and even military pres- 
sure to bear on fraternal countries. 

The leaders of the CPSU have openly called for the 
overthrow of the Party and government leaders of Albania, 
brashly severed all economic and diplomatic relations with 
her and tyrannically deprived her of her legitimate rights as 
a member of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Council 
of Economic Mutual Assistance. 

The leaders of the CPSU have violated the Sino-Soviet 
Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, made 
a unilateral decision to withdraw 1,390 Soviet experts working 
in China, to tear up 343 contracts and supplementary con- 
tracts on the employment of experts and to cancel 257 proj- 
ects of scientific and technical co-operation, and pursued a 
restrictive and discriminatory trade policy against China. They 
have provoked incidents on the Sino-Soviet border and carried 
on large-scale subversive activities in Sinkiang. On more than 
one occasion, Khrushchov went so far as to tell leading com- 
rades of the Central Committee of the CPC that certain anti- 

319 



Party elements in the Chinese Communist Party were his "good 
friends". He has praised Chinese anti-Party elements for at- 
tacking the Chinese Party's general line for socialist construc- 
tion, the big leap forward and the people's communes, describ- 
ing their action as a "manly act". 

Such measures which gravely worsen state relations are rare 
even between capitalist countries. But again and again the 
a leaders of the CPSU have adopted shocking and extreme 
measures of this kind against fraternal socialist countries. Yet 
they go on grating about being "faithful to proletarian interna- 
tionalism". We would like to ask, is there a shred of interna- 
tionalism in all these deeds of yours? 

The great-power chauvinism and splittism of the leaders 
of the CPSU are equally glaring in their conduct vis-a-vis 
fraternal Parties. 

Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU its leaders have tried, 
on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to change 
the leadership of other fraternal Parties to conform to their 
will. Right up to the present they have insisted on "combating 
the personality cult" as a precondition for the restoration of 
unity and as a "principle" which is "obligatory on every Com- 
munist Party". 1 

Contrary to the principles guiding relations among fraternal 
Parties laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, the 
leaders of the CPSU ignore the independent and equal status 
of fraternal Parties, insist on establishing a kind of feudal 
patriarchal domination over the international communist move- 
ment and turn the relations between brother Parties into those 
between a patriarchal father and his sons. Khrushchov has 
more than once described a fraternal Party as a "silly boy" 
and called himself its "mother". 2 With his feudal psychology 
of self-exaltation, he has absolutely no sense of shame. 

1 "For the Unity and Solidarity of the International Communist 
Movement", editorial board article in Pravda, December 6, 1963. 

2 See N. S. Khrushchov's interview with Gardner Cowles, Editor of 
the U.S. magazine Look, April 20, 1962; report by N. S. Khrushchov to 
the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, December 12, 1962. 

320 



The leaders of the CPSU have completely ignored the prin- 
ciple of achieving unanimity through consultation among 
fraternal Parties and habitually make dictatorial decisions and 
order others about. They have recklessly torn up joint agree- 
ments with fraternal Parties, taken arbitrary decisions on 
important matters of common concern to fraternal Parties and 
forced faits accomplis on them. 

The leaders of the CPSU have violated the principle that 
differences among fraternal Parties should be settled through 
inter-Party consultation; they first used their own Party Con- 
gress and then the Congresses of other fraternal Parties as 
rostrums for large-scale public attacks against those fraternal 
Parties which firmly uphold Marxism-Leninism. 

The leaders of the CPSU regard fraternal Parties as pawns 
on their diplomatic chessboard. Khrushchov plays fast and 
loose, he blows hot and cold, he talks one way one day and 
another the next, and yet he insists on the fraternal Parties 
dancing to his every tune without knowing whence or whither. 

The leaders of the CPSU have stirred up trouble and created 
splits in many Communist Parties by encouraging the fol- 
lowers of their revisionist line in these Parties to attack the 
leadership, or usurp leading positions, persecute Marxist- 
Leninists and even expel them from the Party. It is this 
divisive policy of the leaders of the CPSU that has given rise 
to organizational splits in the fraternal Parties of many capi- 
talist countries. 

The leaders of the CPSU have turned the magazine Problems 
of Peace and Socialism, originally the common journal of 
fraternal Parties, into an instrument for spreading revisionism, 
sectarianism and splittism and for making unscrupulous at- 
tacks on Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties in violation of the 
agreement reached at the meeting at which the magazine was 
founded. 

In addition, they are imposing the revisionist line on the in- 
ternational democratic organizations, changing the correct line 

321 



pursued by these organizations and trying to create splits in 
them. 

The leaders of the CPSU have completely reversed enemies 
and comrades. They have directed the edge of struggle, which 
should be against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, against the 
Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties and countries. 

The leaders of the CPSU are bent on seeking Soviet-U.S. 
co-operation for the domination of the world, they regard U.S. 
imperialism, the most ferocious enemy of the people of the 
world, as their most reliable friend, and they treat the fraternal 
Parties and countries adhering to Marxism-Leninism as their 
enemy. They collude with U.S. imperialism, the reactionaries 
of various countries, the renegade Tito clique and the Right- 
wing social democrats in a partnership against the socialist 
fraternal countries, the fraternal Parties, the Marxist-Leninists 
and the revolutionary people of all countries. 

When they snatch at a straw from Eisenhower or Kennedy 
or others like them, or think that things are going smoothly 
for them, the leaders of the CPSU are beside themselves with 
joy, hit out wildly at the fraternal Parties and countries adher- 
ing to Marxism-Leninism, and endeavour to sacrifice fraternal 
Parties and countries on the altar of their political dealings 
with U.S. imperialism. 

When their wrong policies come to grief and they find 
themselves in difficulties, the leaders of the CPSU become 
angrier and more red-faced than ever, again hit out wildly 
at the fraternal Parties and countries adhering to Marxism- 
Leninism, and try to make others their scapegoats. 

These facts show that the leaders of the CPSU have taken 
the road of complete betrayal of proletarian internationalism, 
in contravention of the interests of the Soviet people, the 
socialist camp and the international communist movement 
and those of all revolutionary people. 

These facts clearly demonstrate that the leaders of the CPSU 
counterpose their revisionism to Marxism-Leninism, their 
great-power chauvinism and national egoism to proletarian 

322 



internationalism and their sectarianism and splittism to the in- 
ternational unity of the proletariat. Thus, like all the op- 
portunists and revisionists of the past, the leaders of the CPSU 
have turned into creators of splits in many fraternal Parties, 
the socialist camp and the entire international communist 
movement. 

The revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU 
constitute a greater danger than those of any other op- 
portunists and splitters, whether past or present. As everyone 
knows, this revisionism is occurring in the CPSU, the Party 
which was created by Lenin and which has enjoyed the highest 
prestige among all Communist Parties; it is occurring in the 
great Soviet Union, the first socialist country. For many years, 
Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people the world over 
have held the CPSU in high esteem and regarded the Soviet 
Union as the base of world revolution and the model of strug- 
gle. And the leaders of the CPSU have taken advantage of 
all this — of the prestige of the Party created by Lenin and 
of the first socialist country — to cover up the essence of their 
revisionism and splittism and deceive those who are still un- 
aware of the truth. At the same time, these past masters in 
double-dealing are shouting "unity, unity", while actually 
engaged in splitting. To a certain extent, their tricks do 
temporarily confuse people. Traditional confidence in the 
CPSU and ignorance of the facts have prevented quite a few 
people from recognizing the revisionism and splittism of the 
leaders of the CPSU sooner. 

Because the leaders of the CPSU exercise state power in a 
large socialist country which exerts world-wide influence, their 
revisionist and divisive line has done far greater harm to the 
international communist movement and the proletarian cause 
of world revolution than that of any of the opportunists and 
splitters of the past. 

It can be said that the leaders of the CPSU are the greatest 
of all revisionists as well as the greatest of all sectarians and 
splitters known to history. 

323 



It is already clear that the revisionism and splittism of the 
leaders of the CPSU have greatly assisted the spread of the 
revisionist torrent internationally and rendered enormous 
service to imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries. 

The revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU 
are the product both of the lush growth of the bourgeois ele- 
ments inside the Soviet Union, and of imperialist policy, and 
particularly of the U.S. imperialist policies of nuclear blackmail 
and "peaceful evolution". In turn, their revisionist and divisive 
theories and policies cater not only to the widespread capitalist 
forces at home but also to imperialism, and serve to paralyse 
the revolutionary will and to obstruct the revolutionary strug- 
gle of the people of the world. 

Indeed, the leaders of the CPSU have already won warm 
praise and applause from imperialism and its lackeys. 

The U.S. imperialists praise Khrushchov especially for his 
splitting activities in the international communist movement. 
They say, "It seems clear that Khrushchev is sufficiently in 
earnest in his desire for a detente with the West that he is 
willing to risk a split in the Communist movement to achieve 
it." 1 "Nikita Khrushchev has destroyed, irrevocably, the uni- 
fied bloc of Stalin's day. That is perhaps Khrushchev's great- 
est service — not to Communism, but to the Western world." 2 
"We ought to be grateful for his mishandling of his relation- 
ship with the Chinese. . . . We should be grateful for his 
introducing disarray into international Communism by a lot 
of quite bumptious and sudden initiatives." 3 

They firmly believe that Khrushchov is "the best Soviet 
Prime Minister the West can expect to treat with and ... it 
must try for the time being to avoid any action that might 



1 "Openings for Diplomacy: Cracks in the Blocs", The Nation, 
February 9, 1963. 

2 "Moscow and Peking: How Wide the Split?", Newsweek, March 
26, 1962. 

3 "With Test-Ban Treaty — Has Khrushchev Changed His Ways?", 
U.S. News and World Report, September 30, 1963. 

324 



further weaken his position". 1 They say, "The Administra- 
tion is now convinced that the U.S. should offer Khrushchev 
maximum support in his dispute with Red China." 2 

The Trotskyites, who have long been politically bankrupt, 
are among those applauding the leaders of the CPSU. The 
former actively support the latter on such fundamental is- 
sues as the attitude one should take towards Stalin, towards 
U.S. imperialism and towards the Yugoslav revisionists. They 
say, "The situation created by the Twentieth Congress of the 
CPSU and still more by the Twenty-second Congress is 
eminently favourable for the revival of our movement in the 
workers states themselves." 3 "We have prepared for this for 
more than 25 years. Now we must move in, and move energet- 
ically." 4 "In relation to the Khrushchev tendency, we will 
give a critical support to its struggle for destalinisation against 
the more conservative tendencies. . . ." 5 

Just consider! All the enemies of revolution support the 
leaders of the CPSU with alacrity. The reason is that they 
have found a common language with the leaders of the CPSU 
in their approach to Marxism-Leninism and world revolution, 
and that the revisionist and divisive line of the leaders of the 
CPSU meets the counter-revolutionary needs of U.S. imperial- 
ism. 



'"Communist Unity Seen in U.S. as Thing of the Past", the London 
Times, January 17, 1962. 

2 "The Periscope", Newsweek, July 1, 1963. 

3 "The International Situation and Our Tasks", resolution adopted 
by the Reunification Congress of the Trotskyites' so-called Fourth In- 
ternational in June 1963, Fourth International, Eng. ed, No. 17, October- 
December 1963, p. 47. 

4 "The New Stage of the Russian Revolution and the Crisis of Stalin- 
ism, resolution adopted by a meeting of the National Committee of 
the Trotskyite Socialist Workers' Party of the U.S.A., April 13-15, 1956, 
The 20th Congress (C.P.S.U.) and World Trotskyism, New Park Publica- 
tions Ltd., London, 1957, p. 36. 

5 "The Repercussions of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU", resolution 
adopted by the International Secretariat of the Trotskyites' so-called 
Fourth International on December 5, 1961, Fourth International, Eng. 
ed., No. 14, winter issue, 1961-1962, p. 25. 

325 



As Lenin said, the bourgeoisie understands that "the active 
people in the working class movement who adhere to the op- 
portunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie, than 
the bourgeoisie itself'. 1 The imperialist lords and masters are 
gleefully letting the leaders of the CPSU clear the way for the 
destruction of the proletarian cause of world revolution. 

Having brought on the serious danger of a split in the in- 
ternational communist movement, the leaders of the CPSU 
are trying to shift the blame, vilifying the Chinese Communist 
Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties as guilty of "split- 
tism" and "sectarianism" and fabricating a host of charges 
against them. 

Here we deem it necessary to take up some of their chief 
slanders and to refute them one by one. 



REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF 
BEING ANTI-SOVIET 

The leaders of the CPSU accuse all who resist and criticize 
their revisionism and splittism of being anti-Soviet. This is 
a terrifying charge. To oppose the first socialist country in 
the world and the Party founded by the great Lenin — what 
insolence! 

But we advise the leaders of the CPSU not to indulge in 
histrionics. The anti-Soviet charge can never apply to us. 

We also advise the leaders of the CPSU not to become self- 
intoxicated. The anti-Soviet charge can never silence Marxist- 
Leninists. 

Together with all other Communists and revolutionary 
people the world over, we Chinese Communists have always 
cherished sincere respect and love for the great Soviet people, 
the Soviet state and the Soviet Communist Party. For it was 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The International Situation and the Fundamental 
Tasks of the Communist International", Selected Works, Eng. ed., In- 
ternational Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 196. 

326 



the people of the Soviet Union who, under the leadership of 
Lenin's Party, lit the triumphant torch of the October Rev- 
olution, opened up the new era of world proletarian revolu- 
tion and marched in the van along the road to communism 
in the years that followed. It was the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union and the Soviet state which, under the 
leadership of Lenin and Stalin, pursued a Marxist-Leninist 
domestic and foreign policy, scored unprecedented achieve- 
ments in socialist construction, made the greatest contribution 
to victory in the war against fascism and gave internationalist 
support to the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and 
working people of all other countries. 
Not long before his death, Stalin said: 

. . . representatives of the fraternal parties, in their 
admiration for the daring and success of our Party, conferred 
upon it the title of the "Shock Brigade" of the world revolu- 
tionary and labour movement. By this, they were expressing 
the hope that the successes of the "Shock Brigade" would 
help to ease the position of the peoples languishing under 
the yoke of capitalism. I think that our Party has justified 
these hopes. . . . x 

He was right in saying that the Soviet Party built by Lenin 
had justified the hopes of all Communists. The Soviet Party 
was worthy of the admiration and support it won from all 
the fraternal Parties, including the Chinese Communist Party. 

But, beginning with the 20th Congress, the leaders of the 
CPSU headed by Khrushchov have been launching violent 
attacks on Stalin and taking the road of revisionism. Is it 
possible to say that they have justified the hopes of all Com- 
munists? No, it is not. 

In its "Proposal Concerning the General Line of the Interna- 
tional Communist Movement", the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of China points out that it is the common 



1 J. V. Stalin, Speech at the Nineteenth Congress of the Party, Eng. 
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, p. 9. 

327 



demand of the people in the countries of the socialist camp and 
of the international proletariat and working people that all 
Communist Parties in the socialist camp should: 

(1) adhere to the Marxist-Leninist line and pursue cor- 
rect Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies; 

(2) consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
worker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and carry the 
socialist revolution forward to the end on the economic, 
political and ideological fronts; 

(3) promote the initiative and creativeness of the broad 
masses, carry out socialist construction in a planned way, 
develop production, improve the people's livelihood and 
strengthen national defense; 

(4) strengthen the unity of the socialist camp on the basis 
of Marxism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries 
on the basis of proletarian internationalism; 

(5) oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war, 
and defend world peace; 

(6) oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counter- 
revolutionary policies of the reactionaries of all countries; 
and , 

(7) help the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed 
classes and nations of the world. 

It adds that all Communist Parties in the socialist camp "owe 
it to their own people and to the international proletariat and 
working people to fulfil these demands". 

But instead, the leaders of the CPSU have abandoned these 
demands, disappointed the hopes of the fraternal Parties and 
pursued a revisionist and divisive line. This violates the in- 
terests not only of the international proletariat and working 
people but also of the CPSU, the Soviet state and the Soviet 
people themselves. 

It is none other than the leaders of the CPSU headed by 
Khrushchov who are anti-Soviet. 

328 



The leaders of the CPSU have completely negated Stalin 
and painted the first dictatorship of the proletariat and so- 
cialist system as dark and dreadful. What is this if not anti- 
Soviet? 

The leaders of the CPSU have proclaimed the abolition of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat, altered the proletarian 
character of the CPSU and opened the floodgates for capitalist 
forces in the Soviet Union. What is this if not anti-Soviet? 

The leaders of the CPSU seek U.S. -Soviet co-operation and 
tirelessly fawn upon U.S. imperialism, and have thus disgraced 
he great Soviet Union. What is this if not anti-Soviet? 

The leaders of the CPSU pursue the policy of great-power 
chauvinism and treat fraternal socialist countries as de- 
pendencies, and have thus damaged the prestige of the Soviet 
state. What is this if not anti-Soviet? 

The leaders of the CPSU obstruct and oppose the revolu- 
tionary struggles of other peoples and act as apologists for im- 
perialism and neo-colonialism, and have thus tarnished the 
glorious internationalist tradition of Lenin's Party. What is 
his if not anti-Soviet? 

In short, the actions of the leaders of the CPSU have 
brought deep shame upon the great Soviet Union and the CPSU 
and seriously damaged the fundamental interests of the Soviet 
people. They are anti-Soviet actions through and through. 

Naturally, in these circumstances, the Chinese Communist 
Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties and Marxist-Leninists 
are bound to subject the revisionist and divisive line of the 
leaders of the CPSU to serious criticism for the purpose of 
defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the unity of 
the international communist movement and upholding the 
principle of proletarian internationalism. We oppose only the 
revisionist and divisive errors of the leaders of the CPSU. And 
we do so for the sake of defending the CPSU founded by Lenin 
and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Soviet 
Union, the first socialist country, and of the Soviet people. 
How can this be described as anti-Soviet? 

329 



Whether one defends or opposes the Soviet Union depends 
on whether or not one truly defends the line of Marxism- 
Leninism and the principle of proletarian internationalism 
and whether or not one truly defends the fundamental in- 
terests of the Soviet Party, the Soviet state and the Soviet 
people. To subject the leaders of the CPSU to serious criticism 
for their revisionism and splittism is to defend the Soviet 
Union. On the other hand, to pursue a revisionist and divisive 
line, as the leaders of the CPSU are doing, is actually to oppose 
the Soviet Union; and to copy this wrong line or submit to 
it is not genuinely to defend the Soviet Union but to help the 
leaders of the CPSU damage the fundamental interests of the 
Soviet people. 

Here we may recall Lenin's attitude to the leaders of the 
German Social-Democratic Party in the early years of the 20th 
century. The German Social-Democratic Party was then the 
biggest and most influential party in the Second International. 
But as soon as Lenin discovered opportunism among its leaders, 
he made it clear to the Russian Social-Democrats that they 
should not take "the least creditable features of German Social- 
Democracy as a model worthy of imitation". 1 He further stated: 

We must criticise the mistakes of the German leaders 
fearlessly and openly if we wish to be true to the spirit of 
Marx and help the Russian socialists to be equal to the 
present-day tasks of the workers' movement. 2 

In the spirit of Lenin's behest, we would advise the leaders 
of the CPSU: If you do not correct your revisionist errors, 
we will continue to criticize you "fearlessly and openly" in 
the interests of the CPSU, the Soviet state and the Soviet 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart" 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, 
Vol. IV, p. 315. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunachar- 
sky) on the Attitude of the Party Towards the Trade Unions", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. XIII, p. 165. 

330 



people, and in the interests of the socialist camp and the in- 
ternational communist movement and for the sake of their 
unity. 

REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF 
SEIZING THE LEADERSHIP 

The leaders of the CPSU ascribe our criticisms and our op- 
position to their revisionist and divisive line to a desire to 
"seize the leadership". 

First, we would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: You say 
we want to seize the leadership. From whom? Who now holds 
the leadership? In the international communist movement, is 
there such a thing as a leadership which lords it over all 
fraternal Parties? And is this leadership in your hands? 

Apparently, the leaders of the CPSU consider themselves 
the natural leaders who can lord it over all fraternal Parties. 
According to their logic, their programme, resolutions and 
statements are all infallible laws. Every remark and every 
word of Khrushchov's are imperial edicts, however wrong or 
absurd they may be. All fraternal Parties must submissively 
hear and obey and are absolutely forbidden to criticize or op- 
pose them. This is outright tyranny. It is the ideology of 
feudal autocrats, pure and simple. 

However, we must tell the leaders of the CPSU that the 
international communist movement is not some feudal clique. 
Whether large or small, whether new or old, and whether in or 
out of power, all fraternal Parties are independent and equal. 
No meeting of fraternal Parties and no agreement unanimously 
adopted by them has ever stipulated that there are superior 
and subordinate Parties, one Party which leads and other 
Parties which are led, a Party which is a father and Parties 
which are sons, or that the leaders of the CPSU are the supreme 
rulers over other fraternal Parties. 

The history of the international proletarian revolutionary 
movement shows that, owing to the uneven development of 

331 



revolution, at a particular historical stage the proletariat and 
its party in one country or another marched in the van of the 
movement. 

Marx anal Engels pointed out that the trade union move- 
ment in Britain and the political struggle of the French work- 
ing class were successively in the van of the international pro- 
letarian movement. After the defeat of the Paris Commune, 
Engels said that "the German workers have for the moment 
been placed in the vanguard of the proletarian struggle". He 
went on to say: 

How long events will allow them to occupy this post of 
honour cannot be foretold. . . . the main point, however, 
is to safeguard the true international spirit, which allows 
no patriotic chauvinism to arise, and which joyfully wel- 
comes each new advance of the proletarian movement, no 
matter from which nation it comes. 1 

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian working 
class, standing at the forefront of the international proletarian 
movement, won victory in the proletarian revolution for the 
first time in history. 

Lenin said in 1919: 

Hegemony in the revolutionary proletarian International 
has passed for the time being — but not for long, it goes 
without saying — to the Russians, just as at various periods 
of the nineteenth century it was in the hands of the English, 
then of the French, then of the Germans. 2 

The "vanguard" referred to by Engels, or the "hegemony" 
referred to by Lenin, in no way means that any Party which 
is in the van of the international working-class movement can 
order other fraternal Parties about, or that other Parties must 



1 Frederick Engels, "Prefatory Note to The Peasant War in Germany", 
Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 591. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Third International and Its Place in History", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 203. 

332 



obey it. When the Social-Democratic Party of Germany was 
in the forefront of the movement, Engels said that "it has no 
right to speak in the name of the European proletariat and 
especially no right to say something false". 1 When the Russian 
Bolshevik Party was in the van, Lenin said, ". . . while fore- 
seeing every stage of development in other countries, we must 
decree nothing from Moscow." 2 

Even the vanguard position referred to by Engels and Lenin 
does not remain unchanged for a long time but shifts accord- 
ing to changing conditions. This shift is decided not by the 
subjective wishes of any individual or Party, but by the con- 
ditions shaped by history. If conditions change, other Parties 
may come to the van of the movement. When a Party which 
formerly held the position of vanguard takes the path of 
revisionism, it is bound to forfeit this position despite the 
fact that it has been the largest Party and has exerted the 
greatest influence. The German Social-Democratic Party was 
a case in point. 

At one period in the history of the international commu- 
nist movement, the Communist International gave centralized 
leadership to the Communist Parties of the world. It played 
a great historic role in promoting the establishment and 
growth of Communist Parties in many countries. But when 
the Communist Parties matured and the situation of the in- 
ternational communist movement grew more complicated, 
centralized leadership on the part of the Communist Interna- 
tional ceased to be either feasible or necessary. In 1943 the 
Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist In- 
ternational stated in a resolution proposing to dissolve the 
Comintern: 



1 "Engels to A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875", Selected Correspondence 
of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 354. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Report on the Party Program, Delivered at the Eighth 
Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 159. 

333 



... to the extent that the internal as well as the inter- 
national situation of individual countries became more 
complicated, the solution of the problems of the labour 
movement of each country through the medium of some 
international centre would meet with insuperable obstacles. 

Events have shown that this resolution corresponded to 
reality and was correct. 

In the present international communist movement, the 
question of who has the right to lead whom simply does not 
arise. Fraternal Parties should be independent and com- 
pletely equal, and at the same time they should be united. 
On questions of common concern they should reach unanimity 
of views through consultation, and they should concert their 
actions in the struggle for the common goal. These principles 
guiding relations among fraternal Parties are clearly stipulated 
in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960. 

It is a flagrant violation of these principles, as laid down in 
the Declaration and the Statement, for the leaders of the 
CPSU to consider themselves the leaders of the international 
communist movement and to treat all fraternal Parties as their 
subordinates. 

Because of their different historical backgrounds, the 
fraternal Parties naturally find themselves in different situa- 
tions. Those Parties which have won victory in their revolu- 
tions differ from those which have not yet done so, and those 
which won victory earlier differ from those which did so 
later. But these differences only mean that the victorious 
Parties, and in particular the Parties which won victory 
earlier, have to bear a greater internationalist responsibility 
in supporting other fraternal Parties, and they have absolute- 
ly no right to dominate other fraternal Parties. 

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was built by 
Lenin and Stalin. It was the first Party to win the victory of 
the proletarian revolution, realize the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat and engage in socialist construction. It was only 

334 



logical that the CPSU should carry forward the revolutionary 
tradition of Lenin and Stalin, shoulder greater responsibility 
in supporting other fraternal Parties and countries and stand 
in the van of the international communist movement. 

Taking these historical circumstances into account, the 
Chinese Communist Party expressed the sincere hope that 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would shoulder 
this glorious historic mission. At the 1957 Moscow Meeting 
of the fraternal Parties, our delegation emphasized that the 
socialist camp should have the Soviet Union at its head. The 
reason was that, although they had committed some mistakes, 
"the leaders of the CPSU did finally accept the Moscow Dec- 
laration which was unanimously adopted by the fraternal 
Parties. Our proposal that the socialist camp should have 
the Soviet Union at its head was written into the Declaration. 

We hold that the existence of the position of head does not 
contradict the principle of equality among fraternal Parties. 
It does not mean that the CPSU has any right to control other 
Parties; what it means is that the CPSU carries greater re- 
sponsibility and duties on its shoulders. 

However, the leaders of the CPSU have not been satisfied 
with this position of "head". Khrushchov complained of it 
on many occasions. He said, "What does 'at the head' give 
us materially? It gives us neither milk nor butter, neither 
potatoes nor vegetables nor flats. Perhaps it gives us some- 
thing morally? Nothing at all!" 1 Later he said, "What is the 
use of 'at the head' for us? To hell with it!" 2 

The leaders of the CPSU say they have no desire for the 
position of "head", but in practice they demand the privilege 
of lording it over all fraternal Parties. They do not require 
themselves to stand in the van of the international commu- 



'N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Banquet Given in Honour of the 
Delegations of the Fraternal Parties of the Socialist Countries, February 
4, 1960. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Meeting of the Delegates of Twelve 
Fraternal Parties in Bucharest, June 24, 1960. 

335 



nist movement in pursuing the Marxist-Leninist line and ful- 
filling their proletarian internationalist duty, but they do 
require all fraternal Parties to obey their baton and follow 
them along the path of revisionism and splittism. 

By embarking on the path of revisionism and splittism, the 
leaders of the CPSU automatically forfeited the position of 
"head" in the international communist movement. If the 
word "head" is now to be applied to them, it can only mean 
that they are at the head of the revisionists and splitters. 

The question confronting all Communists and the entire 
international communist movement today is not who is the 
leader over whom, but whether one should uphold Marxism- 
Leninism and proletarian internationalism or submit to the 
revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU. In 
spreading the slander that we want to seize the leadership, 
the leaders of the CPSU are in fact insisting that all fraternal 
Parties, including our own, must bow to their revisionist and 
divisive leadership. 



REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF FRUSTRATING 

THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY AND VIOLATING 

INTERNATIONAL DISCIPLINE 

In their attacks on the Chinese Communist Party since 1960, 
the leaders of the CPSU have most frequently resorted to the 
charge that we "frustrate the will of the majority" and 
"violate international discipline". Let us review our debate 
with them on this question. 

At the Bucharest meeting in June 1960 the leaders of the 
CPSU made a surprise assault on the Chinese Communist 
Party by distributing their Letter of Information attacking 
it and tried to coerce it into submission by lining up a major- 
ity. Their attempt did not succeed. But after the meeting 
they advanced the argument that the minority must submit 
to the majority in relations among fraternal Parties, and de- 

336 



manded that the CPC should respect the "views and will 
unanimously expressed" at the Bucharest meeting on the pre- 
text that the delegates of scores of Parties had opposed the 
views of the CPC. 

This erroneous argument was refuted by the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPC in its Letter of Reply, dated September 10, 
1960, to the Letter of Information of the Central Committee 
oftheCPSU. It pointed out: 

. . . where the fundamental principles of Marxism- 
Leninism are concerned, the problem of exactly who is 
right and who is wrong cannot in every case be judged by 
who has the majority. After all, truth is truth. Error can- 
not be turned into truth because of a temporary majority, 
nor will truth be turned into error because of a temporary 
minority. 

Yet in its letter of November 5, 1960, the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPSU repeated the fallacy about the minority's 
submitting to the majority in the international communist 
movement. Quoting a passage from Lenin's article "The 
Duma 'Seven' ", it accused the CPC, saying that "he who does 
not wish to respect the opinion of the majority of the frater- 
nal Parties is in essence coming out against the unity and 
solidarity of the international communist movement". 

At the Moscow Meeting of the fraternal Parties in 1960, 
the delegation of the CPC once more refuted this fallacy of 
the leaders of the CPSU. It declared that it is totally wrong 
to apply the principle of the minority's submitting to the 
majority to the relations among fraternal Parties in actual 
present-day conditions in which centralized leadership such 
as that of the Comintern neither exists nor is desirable. Within 
a Party the principle that the minority should submit to the 
majority and the lower Party organization to the higher one 
should be observed. But it cannot be applied to relations 
among fraternal Parties. In their mutual relations, each 
fraternal Party maintains its independence and at the same 

337 



time unites with all the others. Here, the relationship in 
which the minority should submit to the majority does not 
exist, and still less so the relationship in which a lower Party 
organization should submit to a higher one. The only way 
to deal with problems of common concern to fraternal Parties 
is to hold discussions and reach unanimous agreement in ac- 
cordance with the principle of consultation. 

The delegation of the CPC pointed out that by advancing 
the principle that the minority should submit to the majority 
in its letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU had obviously 
repudiated the principle of reaching unanimity through con- 
sultation. Our delegation asked: 

On what supra-Party constitution does the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPSU base itself in advancing such an or- 
ganizational principle? When and where did the Communist 
and Workers' Parties of all countries ever adopt such a 
supra-Party constitution? 

The delegation of the CPC then proceeded to expose the 
ruse of the Central Committee of the CPSU in deliberately 
omitting the word "Russian" from its citation of a passage 
dealing with the situation within the Russian Social- 
Democratic Labour Party from Lenin's article "The Duma 
'Seven'", in order to extend the principle of the minority's 
submitting to the majority, which is valid within a Party, to 
the relations among fraternal Parties. 

The delegation of the CPC further stated: 

. . . even within a Party, where the principle of the 
minority's submitting to the majority must be observed 
organizationally, it cannot be said that on questions of 
ideological understanding truth can always be told from 
error on the basis of which is the majority and which the 
minority opinion. It was in this very article, "The Duma 
'Seven'", that Lenin severely denounced the despicable 
action of the seven liquidationists in the Party fraction in 

338 



the Duma who took advantage of a majority of one to sup- 
press the Marxists who were in the minority. Lenin 
pointed out that although the seven liquidationists con- 
stituted the majority, they could not possibly represent the 
united will, united resolutions, united tactics of the major- 
ity of the advanced and conscious Russian workers who 
were organized in a Marxist way, and that therefore all 
shouts about unity were sheer hypocrisy. "The seven non- 
party men want to swallow the six Marxists; and they 
demand that this should be called 'unity'." 1 He continued 
that it was precisely these six Marxists in the Party frac- 
tion in the Duma who were acting in accordance with the 
will of the majority of the proletariat, and that unity could 
be preserved only if those seven delegates "abandon their 
steam-roller tactics". 2 

The delegation of the CPC continued that Lenin's words 
show: 

. . . that even within a Party group the majority is not 
always correct, that on the contrary sometimes the major- 
ity have to "renounce the policy of suppression" if unity is 
to be preserved, and this is particularly the case where 
relations among fraternal Parties are concerned. The 
comrades of the Central Committee of the CPSU rashly 
quoted a passage from Lenin without having fully grasped 
its meaning. Moreover, they purposely deleted an impor- 
tant word. Even so, they failed in their aim! 

We have quoted at length from a speech of the delegation 
of the CPC at the 1960 Moscow Meeting in order to show that 
the absurd charge of the leaders of the CPSU that we 
"frustrate the will of the majority" was completely refuted by 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Duma 'Seven'", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1963, Vol. XIX, p. 450. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Material on the Conflict Within the Social-Democratic 
Duma Group", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. 
XIX, p. 470. 

339 



us some time ago. It is precisely because the Chinese Com- 
munist Party and other fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties 
persistently opposed this fallacy that the principle of achiev- 
ing unanimity through consultation among the fraternal 
Parties was written into the Statement of 1960. 

Yet even now the leaders of the CPSU keep on clamouring 
that "the minority should submit to the majority". This can 
only mean that they wish to deny the independent and equal 
status of all fraternal Parties and to abolish the principle of 
achieving unanimity through consultation. They are trying 
to force some fraternal Parties to submit to their will on the 
pretext of a "majority", and to use the sham preponderance 
thus obtained to attack fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties. 
Their very actions are sectarian and divisive and violate the 
Declaration and the Statement. 

Today, if one speaks of an international discipline binding 
on all Communist Parties, it can only mean observance of the 
principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid 
down in the Declaration and the Statement. We have cited 
a great many facts to prove that these principles have been 
violated by the leaders of the CPSU themselves. 

If the CPSU leaders insist on marking off the "majority" 
from the "minority", then we would like to tell them quite 
frankly that we do not recognize their majority. The major- 
ity you bank on is a false one. The genuine majority is not 
on your side. Is it true that the members of fraternal Parties 
which uphold Marxism-Leninism are a minority in the inter- 
national communist movement? You and your followers are 
profoundly alienated from the masses, so how can the great 
mass of Party members and people who disapprove of your 
wrong line be counted as part of your majority? 

The fundamental question is: Who stands with the broad 
masses of the people? Who represents their basic interests? 
And who reflects their revolutionary will? 

In 1916 Lenin said of the situation in the German Social- 
Democratic Party: 

340 



Liebknecht and Ruble are only two against 108. But these 
two represent millions, the exploited mass, the overwhelm- 
ing majority of the population, the future of mankind, the 
revolution that is mounting and maturing with every passing 
day. The 108, on the other hand, represent only the servile 
spirit of a handful of bourgeois flunkies within the pro- 
letariat. 1 

Today, more than 90 per cent of the world's population 
desire revolution, including those who are not yet but will 
eventually become politically conscious. The real majority 
are the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Parties and Marxist- 
Leninists who represent the fundamental interests of the peo- 
ple, and not the handful of revisionists who have betrayed 
these interests. 



REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SUPPORTING 

THE ANTI-PARTY GROUPS OF 

FRATERNAL PARTIES 

In its Open Letter, the leadership of the CPSU makes the 
slanderous charge that "the CPC leadership organizes and 
supports various anti-party breakaway groups, which oppose 
the Communist parties of the United States, Brazil, Italy, 
Belgium, Australia and India". 

What are the facts? 

The fact is, the splits that have occurred in certain Com- 
munist Parties in recent years have largely been due to the 
forcible application by the leaders of the CPSU of their revi- 
sionist and divisive line. 

The leaders of certain Communist Parties have led the rev- 
olutionary movement of their own countries astray and 
brought serious losses to the revolutionary cause either 



1 V. I. Lenin, "An Open Letter to Boris Souvarine", Collected Works, 
Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXIII, p. 199. 

341 



because they accepted the revisionist line imposed on them 
by the leaders of the CPSU or because their own revisionist 
line was encouraged by the leaders of the CPSU. By follow- 
ing the leaders of the CPSU and banging the drum for them 
in the struggle between the two lines in the international com- 
munist movement, they adversely affect the unity of the 
movement. Inevitably this arouses widespread dissatisfaction 
inside their own Parties and resistance and opposition from 
the Marxist-Leninists in them. 

Aping the leaders of the CPSU, their followers practise a 
divisive policy inside their own Parties. Violating the prin- 
ciple of democratic centralism, they forbid normal inner- 
Party discussion of differences concerning the Party line and 
of major problems confronting the international communist 
movement. Moreover, they illegitimately ostracize, attack 
and even expel Communists who adhere to principle. As a 
result the struggle between the two lines within the Parties 
inevitably takes on a particularly acute form. 

In essence, the struggle within these Communist Parties 
turns on whether to follow the Marxist-Leninist line or the 
revisionist line, and whether to make the Communist Party 
a genuine vanguard of the proletariat and a genuine revolu- 
tionary proletarian party or to convert it into a servant of the 
bourgeoisie and a variant of the Social-Democratic Party. 

In the Open Letter, the leaders of the CPSU present a 
distorted picture of the struggles within the Communist 
Parties of the United States of America, Brazil, Italy, Bel- 
gium, Australia and India. They vilify in the most malicious 
language those Marxist-Leninists who have been attacked 
and ostracized by the revisionist groups in their own Parties. 

Is it possible for the leaders of the CPSU to conceal or alter 
the truth about the struggles within these Communist Parties 
by calling white black and black white? No. They certainly 
cannot! 

Take for example the inner-Party struggle in the Belgian 
Communist Party. 

342 



Differences have existed inside the Belgian Communist 
Party for a long time. The struggle within the Party has be- 
come increasingly acute as the original leading group has sunk 
deeper and deeper into the quagmire of revisionism and aban- 
doned Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

During the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary, the 
revisionist group in the Belgian Communist Party went so far as 
to issue a statement condemning the Soviet Union for helping 
the Hungarian working people to put down the rebellion. 

This revisionist group opposed the Congolese people's armed 
resistance to the bloody repression of the Belgian colonialists 
and supported the U.S. imperialists' utilization of the United 
Nations to interfere in and suppress the movement for na- 
tional independence in the Congo. It shamelessly prided itself 
on being the first to appeal to the United Nations, "desiring 
the rapid and integral application of the U.N. decisions". 1 

It praised the Tito clique's revisionist programme, saying 
that it "contains ideas which enrich Marxism-Leninism". 2 

It denigrated the 1960 Statement, saying that its contents 
were all mixed up and that "in every twenty lines there is 
a phrase contradicting the general line of the Statement". 3 

During the great strike of the Belgian workers towards the 
end of 1960 and at the beginning of 1961, this revisionist 
group undermined the workers' will to fight by denouncing 
their resistance to suppression by the police and gendarmes 
as "rash and irresponsible actions". 4 



'Ernest Burnelle, Interview with a Correspondent of I'Humanite on 
the Congolese Question, Le Drapeau Rouge (organ of the Belgian Com- 
munist Party), July 26, 1960. 

2 "The Belgian Communist Party and the Congress of the League 
of Communists of Yugoslavia", Le Drapeau Rouge, April 22, 1958. 

3 Jean Blume, Speech at the Federal Congress of Brussels, on Decem- 
ber 3, 1961, cited by Jacques Grippa in "For the Marxist-Leninist Unity 
of the Party and for the Marxist-Leninist Unity of the International 
Communist Movement", Le Drapeau Rouge, February 22, 1962. 

4 Jean Blume, "For a Complete and Quick Victory: Two Communist 
Proposals", Le Drapeau Rouge, December 29, 1960. 

343 



In the face of these betrayals of the interests of the Belgian 
working class and the international proletariat, it is only 
natural that Belgian Marxist-Leninists headed by Comrade 
Jacques Grippa earnestly struggled against this revisionist 
group. They have exposed and repudiated the errors of the 
revisionist group inside the Party and have firmly resisted 
and opposed its revisionist line. 

Thus it is clear that the struggle inside the Belgian Com- 
munist Party is a struggle between the Marxist-Leninist and 
the revisionist line. 

How has the revisionist group in the Belgian Communist 
Party handled this inner-Party struggle? They have pursued 
a sectarian and divisive policy and used illegitimate means to 
attack and ostracize those Communists who have persevered 
in a principled Marxist-Leninist stand. At the 14th Congress 
of the Belgian Communist Party they refused to allow Jacques 
Grippa and other comrades to speak and, disregarding the 
widespread opposition of the membership, illegitimately de- 
clared them expelled from the Party. 

It is in these circumstances that Belgian Marxist-Leninists 
headed by Comrade Jacques Grippa, upholding the revolu- 
tionary line, have firmly combated the revisionist and divisive 
line pursued by the original leading group and fought to re- 
build the Belgian Communist Party. Are not their actions 
absolutely correct and above reproach? 

In openly supporting the revisionist group in the Belgian 
Party and encouraging it to attack and ostracize Belgian 
Marxist-Leninists, the leaders of the CPSU have simply ex- 
posed themselves as creators of splits in fraternal Parties. 

As for the Indian Communist Party, its situation is even 
graver. 

On the basis of a wealth of facts, we pointed out in 
"A Mirror for Revisionists", published by the editorial de- 
partment of Renmin Ribao on March 9, 1963, that the 
renegade clique headed by Dange had betrayed Marxism- 
Leninism and proletarian internationalism, betrayed the rev- 

344 



olutionary cause of the Indian proletariat and people and 
embarked on the road of national chauvinism and class ca- 
pitulationism. This clique has usurped the leadership of the 
Indian Communist Party and, conforming to the will of the 
Indian capitalists and landlords, has been transforming 
the Party into a lackey of the Nehru government which rep- 
resents their interests. 

What has happened to the Indian Communist Party since 
then? 

Now everybody can see that the Dange clique is still 
travelling on the road of betrayal. It is still advocating class 
collaboration and the realization of socialism in India through 
the Nehru government. It actively supported the Nehru 
government's huge budget providing for arms expansion and 
war preparation, and its measures for fleecing the people. In 
August 1963 it sabotaged the great strike of one million peo- 
ple in Bombay against the Nehru government's ruthless taxa- 
tion policy. It tried to obstruct the holding of a mass rally in 
Calcutta demanding the release of the imprisoned Commu- 
nists, in which 100,000 people participated. It is continuing its 
frenzied anti-Chinese activities and supporting the Nehru 
government's expansionist policy. It is following the Nehru 
government's policy of hiring itself out to U.S. imperialism. 

As their renegade features are revealed, Dange and com- 
pany meet increasing opposition and resistance from the broad 
rank and file of the Indian Communist Party. More and more 
Indian Communists have come to see clearly that Dange and 
company are the bane of the Indian Communist Party and 
the Indian nation. They are now struggling to rehabilitate 
the Party's glorious and militant revolutionary tradition. 
They are the genuine representatives and the hope of the In- 
dian proletariat and the Indian people. 

The leaders of the CPSU clamour about the Chinese Com- 
munist Party's support of "defectors" and "renegades", but 
is they themselves who support such out-and-out defectors 
and renegades as Dance and company. 

345 



The leaders of the CPSU denounce Communists in many 
countries who dare to combat revisionism and splittism as 
"defectors", "renegades" and "anti-party elements". But 
what have these Communists done? Nothing except to adhere 
to Marxism-Leninism and insist on a revolutionary party and 
a revolutionary line. Do the leaders of the CPSU really think 
that their abuse can cow these Marxist-Leninists, make them 
abandon their struggle for the correct and against the wrong 
line, and prevent them from carrying it through to the end? 
This wishful thinking can never be transformed into reality. 

Everywhere and at all times, true revolutionaries, true 
proletarian revolutionary fighters, true Marxist-Leninists 
(militant materialists), are dauntless people; they are not 
afraid of the abuse of the reactionaries and revisionists. For 
they know it is not such seemingly formidable giants as the 
reactionaries and revisionists, but "nobodies" like themselves 
who represent the future. All great men were once nobodies. 
Provided that they possess the truth and enjoy the support of 
the masses, those who are seemingly insignificant at first are 
sure to be victorious in the end. This was true of Lenin and 
of the Third International. On the other hand, the celebrities 
and the big battalions inevitably dwindle, decline and putrefy 
when they lose possession of the truth and therefore lose the 
support of the masses. This was the case with Bernstein, 
Kautsky and the Second International. Everything tends to 
change into its opposite in particular conditions. 

Communists are makers of revolution. If they refuse to 
make revolutions, they cease to be Marxist-Leninists and 
become revisionists and such-like. As Marxist-Leninists, Com- 
munists by their very nature should adhere to their revolu- 
tionary stand and oppose revisionism. Similarly, a Marxist- 
Leninist Party should as a matter of course give firm support 
to revolutionaries and to Communists who oppose revisionism. 

The Chinese Communist Party has never concealed its 
position. We support all revolutionary comrades who adhere 

346 



to Marxism-Leninism. In the international communist move- 
ment, we have contacts with revisionists; why then can we 
not have contacts with Marxist-Leninists? The leaders of the 
CPSU describe our support for Marxist-Leninists in other 
countries as a divisive act. In our opinion, it is simply a pro- 
letarian internationalist obligation which it is our duty to 
discharge. 

Fearing no difficulty or tyranny, upholding truth and dar- 
ing to struggle, Marxist-Leninists in all countries have demon- 
strated the great revolutionary spirit of communist fighters. 
Among such heroic fighters are the Belgian Communists rep- 
resented by Jacques Grippa and other comrades, the Brazil- 
ian Communists represented by Joao Amazonas, Mauricio 
Grabois and other comrades, the Australian Communists rep- 
resented by E. F. Hill and other comrades, the Ceylonese 
Communists represented by Premalal Kumarasiri, Nagalingam 
Sanmugathasan and other comrades, and the many Marxist- 
Leninists both inside and outside the Indian, Italian, French, 
U.S. and other Communist Parties. They have made impor- 
tant contributions to the common world proletarian cause by 
upholding the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, by 
working persistently to build revolutionary vanguard parties 
of the proletariat armed with Marxist-Leninist principles, 
and by persevering in the revolutionary line that conforms 
with the fundamental interests of the proletariat and other 
working people of their own countries. They deserve the re- 
spect, sympathy and support of all people fighting for the 
victory of communism throughout the world. 

In short, whatever the country or place, where one finds 
oppression, there one finds resistance; where one finds revi- 
sionists, there one finds Marxist-Leninists fighting them, and 
where one finds expulsion of Marxist-Leninists from the 
Party and other divisive measures, there outstanding Marxist- 
Leninists and strong revolutionary parties inevitably emerge. 
Changes contrary to the expectations of the modern revision- 

347 



ists are taking place. The revisionists are producing their own 
opposites and will eventually be buried by them. This is an 
inexorable law. 



THE PRESENT PUBLIC DEBATE 

In the last analysis, the present great debate in the inter- 
national communist movement centres on whether to adhere 
to Marxism-Leninism or to revisionism, whether to adhere to 
proletarian internationalism or to great-power chauvinism and 
whether to desire unity or a split. This dispute over funda- 
mental principles began long ago, following the 20th Con- 
gress of the CPSU. It went on in private talks between 
fraternal Parties for a considerable time until it came into 
the open a little more than two years ago. 

As everybody knows, the leaders of the CPSU first pro- 
voked and insisted on the open polemics in the international 
communist movement. 

At their 22nd Congress in October 1961, they made public 
attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour. In his address at 
that Congress, Comrade Chou En-lai, the head of the Chinese 
Communist Party delegation, took exception to this action by 
the leaders of the CPSU, pointing out that it could not be re- 
garded as representing a serious Marxist-Leninist attitude. 
What was the answer of the Soviet Party leaders? They de- 
clared that they were "absolutely correct" 1 and were taking 
"the only correct and genuinely Marxist-Leninist position of 
principle" 2 in starting the open polemics. 

Then, in January 1962, the Viet Nam Workers' Party sug- 
gested that "mutual attacks on the radio and in the press 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Concluding Speech at the 22nd Congress of the 
CPSU, October 27, 1961, Documents of the 22nd Congress of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 334. 

2 "The Banner of Our Epoch", editorial board article in Pravcla, 
February 21, 1962. 

348 



should be stopped by the Parties". This suggestion was sup- 
ported by the Chinese Communist Party, the Albanian Party 
of Labour and other fraternal Parties. But in effect the 
leaders of the CPSU refused to make a definite commitment 
to halt public polemics. Far from stopping their open attacks 
on the Albanian Party of Labour, they proceeded to engineer 
open attacks on the Chinese Communist Party too at the suc- 
cessive Congresses of five fraternal Parties in Europe in late 
1962 and early 1963, and so launched another round of open 
polemics on an even wider scale. This gave us no choice but 
to make public replies to the attackers. 

Although we had not yet answered all the attacks by 
fraternal Parties, in its reply to the Central Committee of the 
CPSU in March 1963 the Central Committee of our Party 
stated that in order to create a favourable atmosphere for the 
scheduled talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties we 
would temporarily suspend public replies in the press from 
March 9, without prejudice to our rights. But on the eve of 
the talks the leaders of the CPSU took the further step of 
openly attacking the Chinese Communist Party by name in 
their Party statements and resolutions. 

On July 14, in the midst of the talks between the Chinese 
and Soviet Party delegations in Moscow, the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPSU published its Open Letter to Party organi- 
zations and all Communists in the Soviet Union, in which it 
distorted the facts, confused right and wrong, and blatantly 
and demagogically attacked and abused the Chinese Com- 
munist Party and Comrade Mao Tse-tung. Thus, the leaders 
of the CPSU took yet a further step and provoked open 
polemics on a still larger scale. 

From July 15, 1963 onward, the leaders of the CPSU 
slandered and attacked China as their Enemy No. 1, using all 
the media at their disposal, such as government statements, 
speeches by leaders, meetings and articles, and setting in 
motion all their propaganda machinery, from the central and 
local press to the radio and television stations. Between July 

349 



15 and October 31, their twenty-six central newspapers and 
journals alone published 1,119 articles by editorial boards, 
editorials, commentaries, signed articles, readers' letters and 
cartoons, in which the Chinese Communist Party and its 
leaders, Mao Tse-tung, Liu Shao-chi, Chou En-lai and other 
comrades, were assailed by name. Incomplete figures based 
on the study of the 15 organs of the Union Republics showed 
that at least 728 similar anti-Chinese articles and items ap- 
peared in the Soviet local press in the same period. 

We have published the most important anti-Chinese ma- 
terial including the Open Letter of the Central Committee of 
the CPSU, which we printed in full twice and broadcast to 
the whole world in more than a dozen foreign languages in 
order to acquaint those interested in this open debate with 
the views of the leaders of the CPSU. We have not printed 
every one of the Soviet articles attacking China simply be- 
cause they are so numerous and in most cases repeat each 
other, and because our press has limited space. Our publishing 
houses have collected all these articles and will print them 
in book form. 

The Soviet side has already put out nearly two thousand 
anti-Chinese articles and other items. In accordance with 
the principle of equality among all fraternal Parties, the Chi- 
nese side has the right to publish a commensurate number of 
replies. 

As the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
touches upon many questions involving a series of funda- 
mental theoretical issues in Marxism-Leninism as well as 
many major events of the past seven or eight years in the in- 
ternational communist movement, the Editorial Departments 
of our Renmin Ribao and Hongqi, after careful study, started 
the series of comments that began on September 6, 1963. Up 
to now, we have published only seven comments on this Open 
Letter, including the present one. 

We have not yet concluded our comments. As for the vast 
number of anti-Chinese articles published by the central or 

350 



local press of the Soviet Union, we have not even begun to 
reply to them. 

In his answers to newspapermen on October 25, 1963, 
Khrushchov called for a cessation of the public debate. Sub- 
sequently, however, the Soviet press continued to publish 
articles attacking China. 

Recently, the leaders of the CPSU again proposed a halt to 
the public debate which they said had "done enormous harm 
to the communist movement". Yet in the past they said that 
public polemics were "in the interests of the whole world 
communist movement" 1 and "the only correct and genuinely 
Marxist-Leninist position of principle". 2 We would like to 
ask the leaders of the CPSU: What sort of games are you 
playing, saying one thing at one time and another thing at 
another? 

We would also like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Is it 
in accord with the principle of equality among fraternal Par- 
ties for you to ask us to be silent after publishing less than 
ten articles in reply to your two thousand articles and other 
items attacking China, and when we have not yet even com- 
pleted our reply to your Open Letter? Is it in accord with the 
principles of democratic discussion for you to become impa- 
tient and intolerant and to refuse to listen when we have said 
only a little while you have talked so much and for so long? 

Again, we would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Was 
it not an outright threat and intimidation when you brazenly 
declared in the Soviet Government statement of September 
21, 1963 that if the Chinese continued the polemics, "they 
must clearly realize that the most resolute rebuff from the 
CPSU and the Soviet people awaits them on this road"? Do 
you really believe that other people are bound docilely to obey 
your orders and tremble at your roar? To be frank, ever since 



1 "Toward New Victories of Communism", editorial board article in 
Kommunist, No. 16, 1961. 

2 "The Banner of Our Epoch", editorial board article in Pravda, 
February 21, 1962. 

351 



September 21 we have been eagerly waiting to see what "the 
most resolute rebuff would be. 

Comrades and friends! You are mistaken, completely 
mistaken. 

Now that the public debate is on, it must proceed according 
to rule. If you think you have said enough, you should allow 
the other side ample chance to reply. If you think you still 
have a lot to say, please say it all. But when you do so, let 
the other side have his full say as well. In a word, there 
should be equal rights. Have not you, too, said that fraternal 
Parties are equal? Why then do you insist that you may 
start public polemics whenever you want to attack fraternal 
Parties and at the same time deprive the Parties so attacked 
of their right to make public replies whenever you choose to 
stop the polemics? 

The leaders of the CPSU unscrupulously provoked, ex- 
tended and insisted on the open polemics, but now they have 
begun to clamour for their cessation. What is behind all this? 

Apparently, things have not developed according to the ex- 
pectations of the launchers of these polemics. The public 
debate, which the leaders of the CPSU at first thought would 
be to their advantage, is developing in a way contrary to their 
wishes. Truth is not on the side of the leaders of the CPSU, 
and therefore in their attacks on others they can only depend 
on lies, slanders, distortion of the facts and confusion of right 
and wrong. When argument develops and it becomes neces- 
sary to produce facts and reason things out, they find the 
ground slipping from under their feet and take fright. 

Lenin once said that for revisionists "there is nothing 
more disagreeable, undesirable, unacceptable than the eluci- 
dation of the prevailing theoretical, programmatic, tactical 
and organizational differences". 1 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Once More About the International Socialist Bureau 
and the Liquidators", Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1948, 
Vol. XX, p. 37. 

352 



This is precisely the situation in which the leaders of the 
CPSU now find themselves. 

The stand of the Chinese Communist Party on public po- 
lemics is known to all. From the very beginning, we have 
held that differences among fraternal Parties should be re- 
solved through private consultations. The public polemics 
were neither provoked nor desired by us. 

However, since the public debate is already on and since 
the leaders of the CPSU have said that to conduct it is to "act 
in Lenin's manner", 1 it must be conducted on the basis of 
democratic discussion by adducing facts and by reasoning until 
everything is thrashed out. 

More important still, since the leaders of the CPSU have 
openly betrayed Marxism-Leninism and proletarian interna- 
tionalism and torn up the Declaration and the Statement, 
they cannot expect us to refrain from defending Marxism- 
Leninism, proletarian internationalism and the revolutionary 
principles of the Declaration and the Statement. Since the 
debate concerns major issues of principle in the international 
communist movement, they must be thoroughly thrashed out. 
This, too, represents a serious Marxist-Leninist attitude. 

The essence of the matter is that the existing differences in 
the international communist movement are between Marxism- 
Leninism and revisionism and between proletarian interna- 
tionalism and great-power chauvinism. These major dif- 
ferences of principle cannot be solved in a fundamental way 
by a cessation of the public debate. On the contrary, only 
through public debate, setting forth the facts and reasoning 
things out will it be possible to clarify matters, distinguish 
right from wrong and safeguard and strengthen the unity of 
the international communist movement on the basis of Marx- 
ism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

Marxism-Leninism is a science, and science fears no debate. 
Anything which fears debate is no science. The present great 



1 "The Historic Congress of the Leninist Party", Pravda editorial, 
November 4, 1961. 

353 



debate in the international communist movement is impelling 
Communists, revolutionists and revolutionary people in all 
countries to use their brains and ponder over problems con- 
cerning the revolution in their own countries and the world 
revolution in accordance with the fundamental theories of 
Marxism-Leninism. Through this great debate, people will 
be able to distinguish between right and wrong and between 
real and sham Marxism-Leninism. Through this great debate, 
all the revolutionary forces in the world will be mobilized, 
and all Marxist-Leninists will be tempered ideologically and 
politically and will be able to integrate Marxism-Leninism 
with concrete practice in their own countries in a more ma- 
ture way. Thus, Marxism-Leninism will undoubtedly be 
further enriched, developed and raised to new heights. 



THE WAY TO DEFEND AND STRENGTHEN UNITY 

The revisionism and great-power chauvinism of the lead- 
ers of the CPSU are an unprecedented menace to the unity 
of the socialist camp and the international communist move- 
ment. By taking a revisionist and great-power chauvinist 
position, the leaders of the CPSU are standing for a split. 
So long as they maintain such a position, they are in fact 
working for sham unity and a real split no matter how volubly 
they may talk of "unity" and abuse others as "splitters" and 
"sectarians" . 

The Chinese Communist Party, other Marxist-Leninist Par- 
ties and all Marxist-Leninists persevere in Marxism-Leninism 
and proletarian internationalism. This position is the only 
correct one for defending and strengthening the genuine unity 
of the socialist camp and the international communist move- 
ment. 

Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism con- 
stitute the basis of that unity. Only on this basis can the 
unity of fraternal Parties and countries be built. Such unity 

354 



will be out of the question if one departs from this basis. To 
fight for Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism 
is to work for the unity of the international communist move- 
ment. Persevering in principle and upholding unity are 
inextricably bound together. 

If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are 
not just pretending, they should loyally abide by the funda- 
mental theories of Marxism-Leninism and by the Marxist- 
Leninist teachings concerning classes and class struggle, the 
state and revolution, and especially proletarian revolution and 
the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is absolutely imper- 
missible for them to substitute class collaboration or class 
capitulation for class struggle, and social reformism or social 
pacifism for proletarian revolution, or abolish the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat no matter under what pretext. 

If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are 
not just pretending, they should strictly abide by the revolu- 
tionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 State- 
ment. It is absolutely impermissible for them to substitute 
their own Party programme for the common programme 
which was unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties. 

If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are 
not just pretending, they should draw a sharp line of demar- 
cation between enemies and comrades and should unite with 
all socialist countries, all fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties, 
the proletariat of the whole world, all oppressed people and 
nations and all peace-loving countries and people in order to 
oppose U.S. imperialism, the arch-enemy of the people of 
the world, and its lackeys. It is absolutely impermissible for 
them to treat enemies as friends and friends as enemies, and 
to ally themselves with the U.S. imperialists, the reactionaries 
of various countries and the renegade Tito clique against 
fraternal countries and Parties and all revolutionary people, 
in the vain pursuit of world domination through U.S. -Soviet 
collaboration. 

355 



If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are 
not just pretending, they should be faithful to proletarian 
internationalism and strictly abide by the principles guiding 
relations among fraternal countries and Parties, as laid down 
in the Declaration and the Statement. It is absolutely im- 
permissible for them to replace these principles with policies 
of great-power chauvinism and national egoism. In other 
words, they should: 

Observe the principle of solidarity and never line up a 
number of fraternal Parties to attack other fraternal Par- 
ties and engage in sectarian and divisive activities; 

Adhere to the principle of mutual support and mutual 
assistance and never try to control others in the name of 
assistance or, on the pretext of the "international division 
of labour", impair the sovereignty and interests of fraternal 
countries and oppose their building socialism through self- 
reliance; 

Observe the principle of independence and equality and 
never place themselves above other fraternal Parties or 
impose their own Party's programme, line and resolutions 
on others; never interfere in the internal affairs of fraternal 
Parties and carry out subversive activities under the pre- 
text of "combating the personality cult"; and never treat 
fraternal Parties as their property and fraternal countries 
as their dependencies; 

Follow the principle of reaching unanimity through con- 
sultation and never force through their own Party's wrong 
line in the name of the so-called majority or use the Con- 
gresses of their own Party or of other Parties and such 
forms as resolutions, statements and leaders' speeches for 
public and explicit attacks on other fraternal Parties, and 
certainly never extend ideological differences to state rela- 
tions. 

In short, if the leaders of the CPSU genuinely desire the 
unity of the socialist camp and the international communist 

356 



movement, they must make a clean break with their line of 
revisionism, great-power chauvinism and splittism. The unity 
of the socialist camp and the international communist move- 
ment can be safeguarded and strengthened only by remaining 
loyal to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism 
and by opposing modern revisionism and modern dogma- 
tism, great-power chauvinism and other forms of bourgeois 
nationalism, and sectarianism and splittism, and by doing so 
not merely in words but in deeds. This is the sole way to 
defend and strengthen unity. 

Taken as a whole, the present world situation is most 
favourable. The international communist movement has 
already gained brilliant victories, bringing about a funda- 
mental change in the international balance of class forces. At 
present the international communist movement is being as- 
sailed by an adverse current of revisionism and splittism; 
this phenomenon is not inconsistent with the law of historical 
development. Even though it creates temporary difficulties 
for the international communist movement and some fraternal 
Parties, it is a good thing that the revisionists have revealed 
their true features and that a struggle between Marxism- 
Leninism and revisionism has ensued. 

Without any doubt, Marxism-Leninism will continue to 
demonstrate its youthful vitality and will sweep the whole 
world; the international communist movement will grow 
stronger and more united on the basis of Marxism-Leninism; 
and the cause of the international proletariat and the world 
people's revolution will win still more brilliant victories. 
Modern revisionism will undoubtedly go bankrupt. 

We would like to advise the leaders of the CPSU to think 
matters over calmly: what will your clinging to revisionism 
and splittism lead to? Once again, we would like to make a 
sincere appeal to the leaders of the CPSU: We hope you 
will be able to return to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian 
internationalism, to the revolutionary principles of the 1957 
Declaration and the 1960 Statement and to the principles 

357 



guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries as 
laid down in these documents, so that the differences will be 
eliminated and the unity of the international communist move- 
ment and the socialist camp and unity between China and 
the Soviet Union will be strengthened on these principled 
bases. 

Despite our serious differences with the leaders of the 
CPSU, we have full confidence in the vast membership of 
the CPSU and in the Soviet people, who grew up under the 
guidance of Lenin and Stalin. As always, the Communists 
and the people of China will unswervingly safeguard the unity 
between China and the Soviet Union, and consolidate and de- 
velop the deep-rooted friendship between our two peoples. 

Communists of the world, unite on the basis of Marxism- 
Leninism! 



THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION 

AND 

KHRUSHCHOV'S REVISIONISM 

Eighth Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
(People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(March 31, 1964) 



THE present article will discuss the familiar question of 
"peaceful transition". It has become familiar and has 
everybody's attention because Khrushchov raised 
it at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and rounded it into a 
complete system in the form of a programme at the 22nd 
Congress, where he pitted his revisionist views against the 
Marxist-Leninist views. The Open Letter of the Central 
Committee of the CPSU of July 14, 1963 once again struck 
up this old tune. 

In the history of the international communist movement 
the betrayal of Marxism and of the proletariat by the revi- 
sionists has always manifested itself most sharply in their 
opposition to violent revolution and to the dictatorship of the 
proletariat and in their advocacy of peaceful transition 
from capitalism to socialism. This is likewise the case with 
Khrushchov's revisionism. On this question, Khrushchov is 
a disciple of Browder and Tito as well as of Bernstein and 
Kautsky. 

Since the days of World War II, we have witnessed the 
emergence of Browderite revisionism, Titoite revisionism and 
the theory of structural reform. These varieties of re- 
visionism are local phenomena in the international communist 
movement. But Khrushchov's revisionism, which has emerged 
and gained ascendancy in the leadership of the CPSU, con- 
stitutes a major question of overall significance for the in- 
ternational communist movement with a vital bearing on the 
success or failure of the entire revolutionary cause of the 
international proletariat. 

For this reason, in the present article we are replying to 
the revisionists in more explicit terms than before. 

361 



A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND KAUTSKY 

Beginning with the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchov 
put forward the road of "peaceful transition", i.e., "transition 
to socialism by the parliamentary road", 1 which is diametric- 
ally opposed to the road of the October Revolution. 

Let us examine the "parliamentary road" peddled by 
Khrushchov and his like. 

Khrushchov holds that the proletariat can win a stable 
majority in parliament under the bourgeois dictatorship and 
under bourgeois electoral laws. He says that in the capitalist 
countries "the working class, by rallying around itself the 
toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and 
resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are incapa- 
ble of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists 
and landlords, is in a position to defeat the reactionary forces 
opposed to the popular interest, to capture a stable majority 
in parliament". 2 

Khrushchov maintains that if the proletariat can win a 
majority in parliament, this in itself will amount to the 
seizure of state power and the smashing of the bourgeois 
state machinery. He says that for the working class "to win 
a majority in parliament and transform it into an organ of 
the people's power, given a powerful revolutionary movement 
in the country, means smashing the military-bureaucratic 
machine of the bourgeoisie and setting up a new, proletarian 
people's state in parliamentary form". 3 

Khrushchov holds that if the proletariat can win a stable 
majority in parliament, this in itself will enable it to realize 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU, 
February 1956. 

2 Ibid. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, "For New Victories for the World Communist 
Movement" (a speech delivered at a meeting of the Party organisations 
in the Higher Party School, the Academy of Social Sciences and the 
Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Central Committee of the CPSU, on 
January 6, 1961), World Marxist Review, No. 1, 1961, p. 22. 

362 



the socialist transformation of society. He says that the 
winning of a stable parliamentary majority "could create for 
the working class of a number of capitalist and former 
colonial countries the conditions needed to secure fundamental 
social changes". 1 Also, 

. . . the present situation offers the working class in a 
number of capitalist countries a real opportunity to unite 
the overwhelming majority of the people under its leader- 
ship and to secure the transfer of the basic means of pro- 
duction into the hands of the people. 2 

The Programme of the CPSU maintains that "the working 
class of many countries can, even before capitalism is over- 
thrown, compel the bourgeoisie to carry out measures that 
transcend ordinary reforms". 3 The Programme even states 
that under the bourgeois dictatorship it is possible for a situa- 
tion to emerge in certain countries, in which "it will be pre- 
ferable for the bourgeoisie ... to agree to the basic means 
of production being purchased from it". 4 

The stuff Khrushchov is touting is nothing original but 
is simply a reproduction of the revisionism of the Second 
International, a revival of Bernsteinism and Kautskyism. 

The main distinguishing marks of Bernstein's betrayal of 
Marxism were his advocacy of the legal parliamentary road 
and his opposition to violent revolution, the smashing of the 
old state machinery and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Bernstein held that capitalism could "grow into socialism" 
peacefully. He said that the political system of modern 
bourgeois society "should not be destroyed but should only 



'N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, 
February 1956. 

2 Ibid. 

3 "Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", Doc- 
uments of 22nd Congress of the CPSU, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1961, 
p. 482. 

4 Ibid., p. 486. 

363 



be further developed", 1 and that "we are now bringing about 
by voting, demonstrations and similar means of pressure re- 
forms which would have required bloody revolution a hun- 
dred years ago". 2 

He held that the legal parliamentary road was the only 
way to bring about socialism. He said that if the working 
class has "universal and equal suffrage, the social principle 
which is the basic condition for emancipation is attained". 3 

He asserted that "the day will come when it [the working 
class] will have become numerically so strong and will be so 
important for the whole of society that so to speak the palace 
of the rulers will no longer be able to withstand its pressure 
and will collapse semi-spontaneously". 4 

Lenin said: 

The Bernsteinians accepted and accept Marxism minus 
its directly revolutionary aspect. They do not regard the 
parliamentary struggle as one of the weapons particularly 
suitable for definite historical periods, but as the main and 
almost the sole form of struggle making "force", "seizure", 
"dictatorship", unnecessary. 5 

Herr Kautsky was a fitting successor to Bernstein. Like 
Bernstein, he actively publicized the parliamentary road and 
opposed violent revolution and the dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat. He said that under the bourgeois democratic system 
there is "no more room for armed struggle for the settlement 
of class conflicts" 6 and that "it would be ridiculous ... to 



1 Eduard Bernstein, The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks 
of the Social-Democratic Party, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1923, p. 11. 
' 2 Ibid., p. 197. 

3 Eduard Bernstein, What Is Socialism? Ger. ed., Berlin, 1922, p. 28. 

4 Eduard Bernstein, The Political Mass Strike and the Political Situa- 
tion of the Social-Democratic Party in Germany, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1905, 
p. 37.' 

5 V. I. Lenin, "The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Work- 
ers' Party", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. X, 
p. 249. 

6 Karl Kautsky, The Materialist Interpretation of History, Ger. ed., 
Berlin, 1927, pp. 431-32. 

364 



preach a violent political overthrow". 1 He attacked Lenin and 
the Bolshevik Party by comparing them to "an impatient 
midwife who uses violence to make a pregnant woman give 
birth in the fifth month instead of the ninth". 2 

Kautsky was hopelessly afflicted with parliamentary cre- 
tinism. He made the well-known statement: 

The aim of our political struggle remains, as hitherto, the 
conquest of state power by winning a majority in parlia- 
ment and by converting parliament into the master of the 
government. 3 

He also said: 

The parliamentary republic — with a monarchy at the 
top on the English model, or without — is to my mind the 
base out of which proletarian dictatorship and socialist 
society grow. This republic is the "state of the future" 
toward which we must strived. 4 

Lenin severely criticized these absurd statements of 
Kautsky's. 

In denouncing Kautsky, Lenin declared: 

Only scoundrels or simpletons can think that the pro- 
letariat must win the majority in elections carried out 
under the yoke of the bourgeoisie, under the yoke of wage- 
slavery, and that it should win power afterwards. This is 
the height of folly or hypocrisy; it is substituting voting, 
under the old system and with the old power, for class 
struggle and revolution. 5 



1 Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed., 
Rand School Press, New York, 1946, p. 117. 

2 Karl Kautsky, The Proletarian Revolution and Its Programme, Ger. 
ed., Berlin, 1922, p. 90. 

3 Karl Kautsky, "New Tactics", Die Neue Zeit, No. 46, 1912. 

4 Karl Kautsky, Letter to Franz Mehring, July 15, 1893. 

5 V. I. Lenin, "Greetings to the Italian, French and German Com- 
munists", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 40. 

365 



Lenin made the pointed comment that Kautsky's parliamen- 
tary road "is nothing but the purest and the most vulgar 
opportunism: repudiating revolution in deeds, while accept- 
ing it in word". 1 He said: 

By so "interpreting" the concept "revolutionary dictator- 
ship of the proletariat" as to expunge the revolutionary 
violence of the oppressed class against its oppressors, 
Kautsky beat the world record in the liberal distortion of 
Marx. 2 

Here, we have quoted Khrushchov as well as Bernstein and 
Kautsky and Lenin's criticism of these two worthies at some 
length in order to show that Khrushchov's revisionism is 
modern Bernsteinism and Kautskyism, pure and simple. As 
with Bernstein and Kautsky, Khrushchov's betrayal of Marx- 
ism is most sharply manifested in his opposition to revolu- 
tionary violence, in what he does "to expunge revolutionary 
violence". In this respect, Kautsky and Bernstein have now 
clearly lost their title to Khrushchov who has set a new world 
record. Khrushchov, the worthy disciple of Bernstein and 
Kautsky, has excelled his masters. 



VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW 
OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION 

The entire history of the working-class movement tells us 
that the acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of violent 
revolution as a universal law of proletarian revolution, of the 
necessity of smashing the old state machine, and of the neces- 
sity of replacing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 323. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade 
Kautsky", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, 
Part 2, pp. 47-48. 

366 



dictatorship of the proletariat has always been the watershed 
between Marxism and all brands of opportunism and revision- 
ism, between proletarian revolutionaries and all renegades 
from the proletariat. 

According to the basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism, the 
key question in every revolution is that of state power. And 
the key question in the proletarian revolution is that of the 
seizure of state power and the smashing of the bourgeois state 
machine by violence, the establishment of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat and the replacement of the bourgeois state by 
the proletarian state. 

Marxism has always proclaimed the inevitability of violent 
revolution. It points out that violent revolution is the mid- 
wife to socialist society, the only road to the replacement of 
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, and a universal law of proletarian revolution. 

Marxism teaches us that the state itself is a form of 
violence. The main components of the state machine are the 
army and the police. History shows that all ruling classes 
depend upon violence to maintain their rule. 

The proletariat would, of course, prefer to gain power by 
peaceful means. But abundant historical evidence indicates 
that the reactionary classes never give up power voluntarily 
and that they are always the first to use violence to repress 
the revolutionary mass movement and to provoke civil war, 
thus placing armed struggle on the agenda. 

Lenin has spoken of "civil war, without which not a single 
great revolution in history has yet been able to get along, and 
without which not a single serious Marxist has conceived of 
the transition from capitalism to socialism". 1 

The great revolutions in history referred to by Lenin in- 
clude the bourgeois revolution. The bourgeois revolution is 
one in which one exploiting class overthrows another, and 
yet it cannot be made without a civil war. Still more is this 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Prophetic Words", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 
1950, Vol. XXVII, p. 457. 

367 



the case with the proletarian revolution, which is a revolu- 
tion to abolish all exploiting classes and systems. 

Regarding the fact that violent revolution is a universal 
law of proletarian revolution, Lenin repeatedly pointed out 
that "between capitalism and socialism there lies a long period 
of 'birth pains' — that violence is always the midwife of the 
old society", 1 that the bourgeois state "cannot be superseded 
by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) 
through the process of 'withering away,' but, as a general 
rule, only through a violent revolution", 2 and that "the neces- 
sity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and pre- 
cisely this view of violent revolution lies at the root of all 
the teachings of Marx and Engels". 3 

Stalin, too, said that a violent revolution of the proletariat, 
the dictatorship of the proletariat, is "an inevitable and in- 
dispensable condition for the advance towards socialism" in 
all countries ruled by capital. 4 

Can a radical transformation of the bourgeois order be 
achieved without violent revolution, without the dictatorship 
of the proletariat? Stalin answered: 

Obviously not. To think that such a revolution can be 
carried out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois 
democracy, which is adapted to the rule of the bourgeoisie, 
means that one has either gone out of one's mind and lost 
normal human understanding, or has grossly and openly 
repudiated the proletarian revolution. 5 



1 V. I. Lenin, "Those Who Are Terrified by the Collapse of the Old 
and Those Who Fight for the New", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Mos- 
cow, 1949, Vol. XXVI, p. 362. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 219. 

3 Ibid., p. 220. 

4 J. V. Stalin, "Reply to the Discussion on the Report on 'The Social- 
Democratic Deviation in Our Party'", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 
1954, Vol. VIII, p. 323. 

5 J. V. Stalin, "Concerning Questions of Leninism", Works, Eng. ed, 
FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VIII, p. 25. 

368 



Basing himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory of violent 
revolution and the new experience of the proletarian revolu- 
tion and the people's democratic revolution led by the pro- 
letariat, Comrade Mao Tse-tung advanced the celebrated 
dictum that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: 

. . . revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in 
class society and that without them, it is impossible to 
accomplish any leap in social development and to over- 
throw the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impos- 
sible for the people to win political power. 1 

He stated: 

The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of 
the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form 
of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolu- 
tion holds good universally, for China and for all other 
countries. 2 

He stated further: 

Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism 
teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the 
working class and the labouring masses can defeat the 
armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say 
that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. 3 

To sum up, violent revolution is a universal law of pro- 
letarian revolution. This is a fundamental tenet of Marxism- 
Leninism. It is on this most important question that Khru 
hchov betrays Marxism-Leninism. 



1 Mao Tse-tung, "On Contradiction", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, 
Peking, 1964, Vol. I, p. 344. 

2 Mao Tse-tung, " Problems of War and Strategy", Selected Military 
Writings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 267. 

3 Ibid., p. 273. 

369 



OUR STRUGGLE AGAINST KHRUSHCHOV'S 
REVISIONISM 

When Khrushchov first put forward the "parliamentary 
road" at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Chinese Com- 
munist Party considered it a gross error, a violation of the 
fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism, and absolutely 
unacceptable. 

As Khrushchov's revisionism was still in its incipient stage 
and the leaders of the CPSU had not as yet provoked open 
polemics, we refrained for a time from publicly exposing or 
criticizing Khrushchov's error of the "parliamentary road". 
But, as against his erroneous proposition, we stated the 
Marxist-Leninist view in a positive form in our documents 
and articles. At the same time we waged the appropriate and 
necessary struggle against it at inter-Party talks and meet- 
ings among the fraternal Parties. 

Summing up the experience of the Chinese revolution, we 
clearly stated in the political report of our Central Committee 
to the Eighth National Congress of our Party in September 
1956: 

While our Party was working for peaceful change, it did 
not allow itself to be put off its guard or to give up the 
peoples arms. . . . 

Unlike the reactionaries, the people are not warlike. . . . 
But when the people were compelled to take up arms, they 
were completely justified in doing so. To have opposed 
the people's taking up arms and to have asked them to 
submit to the attacking enemy would have been to follow 
an opportunist line. Here, the question of following a rev- 
olutionary line or an opportunist line became the major 
issue of whether our 600 million people should or should 
not capture political power when conditions were ripe. 
Our Party followed the revolutionary line and today we 
have the People's Republic of China. 

370 



On this question, the Marxist-Leninist view of the Eighth 
National Congress of the CPC is opposed to the revisionist 
view of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. 

In December 1956 we explained the road of the October 
Revolution in a positive way in the article "More on the 
Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", 
thus in fact criticizing the so-called parliamentary road which 
Khrushchov set against the road of the October Revolution. 

In many private talks with the leaders of the CPSU, the 
leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC made 
serious criticisms of Khrushchov's erroneous views. We 
hoped in all sincerity that he would correct his mistakes. 

At the time of the Meeting of Representatives of the Com- 
munist and Workers' Parties in 1957, the delegation of the 
CPC engaged in a sharp debate with the delegation of the 
CPSU on the question of the transition from capitalism to 
socialism. 

In the first draft for the Declaration which it proposed 
during the preparations for the Moscow meeting, the Central 
Committee of the CPSU referred only to the possibility of 
peaceful transition and said nothing about the possibility of 
non-peaceful transition; it referred only to the parliamentary 
road and said nothing about other means of struggle, and at 
the same time pinned hopes for the winning of state power 
through the parliamentary road on "the concerted actions of 
Communists and socialists". Naturally the Central Committee 
of the CPC could not agree to these wrong views, which depart 
from Marxism-Leninism, being written into the programmatic 
document of all the Communist and Workers' Parties. 

After the delegation of the CPC made its criticisms, the 
Central Committee of the CPSU produced a second draft for 
the Declaration. Although phrases about the possibility of 
non-peaceful transition were added, the formulation of the 
question of peaceful transition in this draft still reflected the 
revisionist views put forward by Khrushchov at the 20th 
Congress of the CPSU. 

371 



The delegation of the CPC expressed its disagreement with 
these erroneous views in clear terms. On November 10, 1957 
it systematically explained its own views on the question of 
the transition from capitalism to socialism to the Central 
Committee of the CPSU, to which it also presented a written 
outline. 

The main points made in our written outline are sum- 
marized below. 

It is advantageous from the point of view of tactics to refer to 
the desire for peaceful transition, but it would be 
inappropriate to over-emphasize the possibility of peaceful 
transition. It is necessary to be prepared at all times to 
repulse counter-revolutionary attacks and, at the critical 
juncture of the revolution when the working class is seizing 
state power, to overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force if 
it uses armed force to suppress the people's revolution 
(generally speaking, it is inevitable that the bourgeoisie 
will do so). 

The parliamentary form of struggle must be fully 
utilized, but its role is limited. What is most important is 
to proceed with the hard work of accumulating revolu- 
tionary strength; peaceful transition should not be inter- 
preted in such a way as solely to mean transition through 
a parliamentary majority. The main question is that of the 
state machinery, namely, the smashing of the old state 
machinery (chiefly the armed forces) and the establishment 
of the new state machinery (chiefly the armed forces). 

The social democratic parties are not parties of socialism; 
with the exception of certain Left wings, they are a variant 
of bourgeois political parties. On the question of socialist 
revolution, our position is fundamentally different from that 
of the social democratic parties. This distinction must not 
be obscured. 

These views of ours are in full accord with Marxism- 
Leninism. 

372 



The comrades of the delegation of the Central Committee 
of the CPSU were unable to argue against them, but they 
repeatedly asked us to make allowances for their internal 
needs, expressing the hope that the formulation of this ques- 
tion in the draft Declaration might show some connection 
with its formulation by the 20th Congress of the CPSU. 

We had refuted the wrong views of the leadership of the 
CPSU and put forward a written outline of our own views. 
For this reason and for the sake of the common struggle 
against the enemy, the delegation of the CPC decided to meet 
the repeated wishes of the comrades of the CPSU and agreed 
to take the draft of the Central Committee of the CPSU on 
this question as the basis, while suggesting amendments in 
only a few places. 

We hoped that through this debate the comrades of the 
CPSU would awaken to their errors and correct them. But 
contrary to our hopes, the leaders of the CPSU did not do so. 

At the meeting of fraternal Parties in 1960, the delegation 
of the CPC again engaged in repeated sharp debates with the 
delegation of the CPSU on the question of the transition from 
capitalism to socialism, and thoroughly exposed and criticized 
Khrushchov's revisionist views. During the meeting, the 
Chinese and the Soviet sides each adhered to its own position, 
and no agreement could be reached. In view of the general 
wish of fraternal Parties that a common document should be 
hammered out at the meeting, the delegation of the CPC 
finally made a concession on this question again and agreed 
to the verbatim transcription of the relevant passages in the 
1957 Declaration into the 1960 Statement, again out of con- 
sideration for the needs of the leaders of the CPSU. At the 
same time, during this meeting we distributed the Outline of 
Views on the Question of Peaceful Transition put forward by 
the Chinese Communist Party on November 10, 1957, and 
made it clear that we were giving consideration to the leader- 
ship of the CPSU on this issue for the last time, and would 
not do so again. 

373 



If comrades now make the criticism that we were wrong 
in giving this consideration to the leaders of the CPSU, we 
are quite ready to accept this criticism. 

As the formulation of the question of peaceful transition 
in the Declaration and the Statement was based on the drafts 
of the CPSU and in some places retained the formulation by 
its 20th Congress, there are serious weaknesses and errors in 
the overall presentation, even though a certain amount of 
patching up was done. While indicating that the ruling 
classes never relinquish power voluntarily, the formulation 
in the two documents also asserts that state power can be 
won in a number of capitalist countries without civil war; 
while stating that extra-parliamentary mass struggle should 
be waged to smash the resistance of the reactionary forces, 
it also asserts that a stable majority can be secured in parlia- 
ment and that parliament can thus be transformed into an 
instrument serving the working people; and while referring 
to non-peaceful transition, it fails to stress violent revolu- 
tion as a universal law. The leadership of the CPSU has 
taken advantage of these weaknesses and errors in the Dec- 
laration and the Statement and used them as an excuse for 
peddling Khrushchov's revisionism. 

It must be solemnly declared that the Chinese Communist 
Party has all along maintained its differing views on the 
formulation of the question of the transition from capitalism 
to socialism in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 
1960. We have never concealed our views. We hold that in 
the interest of the revolutionary cause of the international 
proletariat and in order to prevent the revisionists from 
misusing these programmatic documents of the fraternal 
Parties, it is necessary to amend the formulation of the ques- 
tion in the Declaration and the Statement through joint con- 
sultation of Communist and Workers' Parties so as to con- 
form to the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism. 

In order to help readers acquaint themselves with the full 
views of the Chinese Communist Party on this question, we 

374 



are re-publishing the complete text of the Outline of Views 
on the Question of Peaceful Transition put forward by the 
delegation of the CPC to the Central Committee of the CPSU 
on November 10, 1957, as an appendix to this article. 1 

In the last eight years the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist 
Parties and of the world's Marxist-Leninists against Khru- 
shchov's revisionism has made great progress. More and more 
people have come to recognize the true features of Khru- 
shchov's revisionism. Nevertheless, the leaders of the CPSU 
are still resorting to subterfuge and quibbles, and trying in 
every possible way to peddle their nonsense. 

Therefore, it is still necessary for us to refute the fallacy 
of "peaceful transition". 



SOPHISTRY CANNOT ALTER HISTORY 

The leaders of the CPSU openly distort the works of Marx 
and Lenin and distort history too to cover up their betrayal 
of Marxism-Leninism and justify their revisionist line. 

They argue: Did not Marx "admit such a possibility [peace- 
ful transition] for England and America"? 2 In fact, this 
argument is taken from the renegade Kautsky who used the 
self-same method to distort Marx's views and oppose the 
proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

It is true that in the 1870's Marx said that in countries like 
the United States and Britain "the workers can reach their 
goal by peaceful means". But at the same time he stressed 
that this possibility was an exception. He said that "even 
if this be so, we must also recognize that in the majority of 



1 See Appendix I to "The Origin and Development of the Differ- 
ences Between the Leadership of the CPSU and Ourselves", pp. 105-08 
of this book. 

2 0. V. Kuusinen and others, Foundations of Marxism-Leninism, Russ. 
ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 526. 

375 



countries on the continent force must serve as the lever of 
our revolution". 1 What is more, he pointed out: 

The English bourgeoisie has always shown its readiness 
to accept the decision of the majority, so long as it has the 
monopoly of the suffrage. But believe me, at the moment 
when it finds itself in the minority on questions which it 
considers vitally important, we will have a new slave- 
holders' war here. 2 

Lenin said in his criticism of the renegade Kautsky: 

The argument that Marx in the 'seventies granted the 
possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in England 
and America is the argument of a sophist, or, to put it 
bluntly, of a swindler who juggles with quotations and 
references. First, Marx regarded this possibility as an 
exception even then. Secondly, in those days monopoly 
capitalism, i.e., imperialism, did not yet exist. Thirdly, in 
England and America there was no military then — as 
there is now — serving as the chief apparatus of the bour- 
geois state machine. 3 

Lenin said that, by virtue of its fundamental economic 
traits, imperialism is distinguished "by a minimum attach- 
ment for peace and freedom, and by a maximum and universal 
development of militarism". "To 'fail to notice' this" in the 
discussion of the question of peaceful or violent change is 
"to stoop to the position of a common or garden variety 
lackey of the bourgeoisie." 4 



1 Karl Marx, "On the Hague Congress, Speech at a Mass Meeting in 
Amsterdam", Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow, 
1961, Vol. XVIII, p. 154. 

2 "Record of a Talk Between K. Marx and the Correspondent of 
The World ", Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow, 
1961, Vol. XVII, p. 637. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade 
Kautsky", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New 
York, 1945, Vol. XXIII, pp. 233-34. 

4 Ibid., p. 357. 

376 



Today, the leaders of the CPSU have struck up Kautsky's 
old tune. What is this if not stooping to the position of a 
common or garden lackey of the bourgeoisie? 

Again, the leaders of the CPSU argue: Did not Lenin 
"admit in principle the possibility of a peaceful revolution"? 1 
This is even worse sophistry. 

For a time after the February Revolution of 1917 Lenin 
envisaged a situation in which "in Russia, by way of an ex- 
ception, this revolution can be a peaceful revolution". 2 
He called this "an exception" because of the special cir- 
cumstances then obtaining: "The essence of the matter was 
that the arms were in the hands of the people, and that no 
coercion from without was exercised in regard to the people." 3 
In July 1917 the counter-revolutionary bourgeois govern- 
ment suppressed the masses by force of arms, drenching the 
streets of Petrograd with the blood of workers and soldiers. 
After this incident Lenin declared that "all hopes for a peace- 
ful development of the Russian Revolution have definitely 
vanished". 4 In October 1917 Lenin and the Bolshevik Party 
resolutely led the workers and soldiers in an armed uprising 
and seized state power. Lenin pointed out in January 1918 
that "the class struggle. . . has turned into a civil war". 5 The 
Soviet state had to wage another three and half years 
of revolutionary war and to make heavy sacrifices before it 
smashed both the domestic counter-revolutionary rebellion 



'A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Rev- 
olution and the Present Day", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Speech on Attitude Towards the Provisional Govern- 
ment", delivered at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Work- 
ers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 
1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 80. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "On Slogans", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Mos- 
cow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 88. 

4 V. I. Lenin, "The Political Situation", Collected Works, Eng. ed., 
International Publishers, New York, 1932, Vol. XXI, Book 1, p. 37. 

5 V. I. Lenin, "People from the Next World", Collected Works, Russ. 
ed., Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXVI, p. 393. 

377 



and the foreign armed intervention. Only then was the 
victory of the revolution consolidated. In 1919 Lenin said 
that "revolutionary violence gained brilliant successes in the 
October Revolution". 1 

Now the leaders of the CPSU have the impudence to say 
that the October Revolution was "the most bloodless of all 
revolutions" 2 and was "accomplished almost peacefully". 3 
Their assertions are totally contrary to the historical facts. 
How can they face the revolutionary martyrs who shed their 
blood and sacrificed their lives to create the world's first 
socialist state? 

When we point out that world history has thus far pro- 
duced no precedent for peaceful transition from capitalism 
to socialism, the leaders of the CPSU quibble, saying that 
"practical experience exists of the achievement of the so- 
cialist revolution in peaceful form". And shutting their eyes 
to all the facts, they state, "In Hungary in 1919, the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat was established by peaceful means." 4 

Is this true? No, it is not. Let us see what Bela Kun, the 
leader of the Hungarian revolution, had to say. 

The Communist Party of Hungary was founded in Novem- 
ber 1918. The new-born Party immediately plunged into 
revolutionary struggle and proclaimed as the slogans of so- 
cialist revolution: "Disarm the bourgeoisie, arm the pro- 
letariat, establish Soviet power." 5 The Hungarian Communist 
Party worked actively in all fields for an armed uprising. It 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Successes and Difficulties of Soviet Power", Col- 
lected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXIX, p. 41. 

2 F. Konstantinov, "Lenin and Our Own Times", Kommunist, Mos- 
cow, No. 5, 1960. 

3 A. I. Mikoyan, Speech at the 20th Congress, The 20th Congress of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1956, 
Vol. I, p. 313. 

4 "Marxism-Leninism — the Basis of Unity of the Communist Move- 
ment", editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 15, 1963. 

5 Bela Kun, Lessons of the Proletarian Revolution in Hungary, Russ. 
ed., Moscow, 1960, p. 46. 

378 



armed the workers, strove to win over the government troops 
and organize the demobilized soldiers, staged armed demon- 
strations, led the workers in expelling their bosses and oc- 
cupying the factories, led the agricultural workers in seizing 
large estates, disarmed the reactionary army officers, troops 
and police, combined strikes with armed uprisings, and so 
forth. 

In fact, the Hungarian revolution abounded in armed strug- 
gle of various forms and on various scales. Bela Kun wrote: 

From the day of the founding of the Communist Party 
to the taking of power, armed clashes with the organs 
of bourgeois power occurred with increasing frequency. 
Starting with December 12, 1918 when the armed Buda- 
pest garrison came out into the streets in a demonstration 
against the War Minister of the Provisional Government, 
. . . there was probably not a single day on which the press 
failed to report sanguinary clashes between the revolu- 
tionary workers and soldiers and armed units of the gov- 
ernment forces, and in particular of the police. The Com- 
munists organized numerous uprisings not only in Budapest 
but in the provinces as well. 1 

The leaders of the CPSU are telling a glaring lie when they 
say that the Hungarian Revolution was an example of peace- 
ful transition. 

It is alleged in the Soviet press that the Hungarian bour- 
geois government "voluntarily resigned", 2 and this is probably 
the only ground the leaders of the CPSU base themselves on. 
But what were the facts? 

Karolyi, the head of the Hungarian bourgeois government 
at the time, was quite explicit on this point. He declared: 

I signed a proclamation concerning my own resignation 
and the transfer of power to the proletariat, which in reality 

l lbid., p. 57. 

2 "How the World Revolutionary Process Is Developing", Sovietskaya 
Rossia, August 1, 1963. 

379 



had already taken over and proclaimed power earlier . . . 
/ did not hand over power to the proletariat, as it had 
already won it earlier, thanks to its planned creation of a 
Socialist army. 

For this reason, Bela Kun pointed out that to say the 
bourgeoisie voluntarily handed political power over to the 
proletariat was a deceptive "legend". 1 

The Hungarian Revolution of 1919 was defeated. In 
examining the chief lessons of its defeat, Lenin said that one 
fatal error committed by the young Hungarian Communist 
Party was that it was not firm enough in exercising dicta- 
torship over the enemy but wavered at the critical moment. 
Moreover, the Hungarian Party failed to take correct measures 
to meet the peasants' demand for the solution of the land 
problem and therefore divorced itself from the peasantry. 
Another important reason for the defeat of the revolution was 
the amalgamation of the Communist Party and the opportun- 
ist Social Democratic Party. 

It is a sheer distortion of history when the leaders of the 
CPSU allege that the Hungarian Revolution of 1918-19 is 
a model of "peaceful transition". 

Furthermore, they allege that the working class of Czecho- 
slovakia won "power by the peaceful road". 2 This is another 
absurd distortion of history. 

The people's democratic power in Czechoslovakia was es- 
tablished in the course of the anti-fascist war; it was not taken 
from the bourgeoisie "peacefully". During World War II, 
the Communist Party led the people in guerrilla warfare and 
armed uprisings against the fascists, it destroyed the German 
fascist troops and their servile regime in Czechoslovakia with 
the assistance of the Soviet Army and established a national 
front coalition government. This government was in essence 



1 Bela Kun, op. cit., p. 49. 

2 L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the 12th Congress of the Communist Party 
of Czechoslovakia, Pravda, December 4, 1962. 

380 



a people's democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the 
proletariat, i.e., a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In February 1948 the reactionaries inside Czechoslovakia, 
backed by U.S. imperialism, plotted a counter-revolutionary 
coup d'etat to overthrow the people's government by an armed 
rebellion. But the government led by the Communist Party 
immediately deployed its armed forces and organized armed 
mass demonstrations, thus shattering the bourgeois plot for 
a counter-revolutionary come-back. These facts clearly 
testify that the February event was not a "peaceful" seizure 
of political power by the working class from the bourgeoisie 
but a suppression of a counter-revolutionary bourgeois coup 
d'etat by the working class through its own state apparatus, 
and mainly through its own armed forces. 

In summarizing the February event Gottwald said: 

Even before the February event we said: one of the basic 
changes compared with what existed before the war is 
precisely that the state apparatus already serves new classes 
and not the previous ruling classes. The February event 
showed that the state apparatus, in this sense, played an 
outstanding role. . . } 

How can the above instances be regarded as precedents for 
peaceful transition? 
Lenin said: 

Kautsky had to resort to all these subterfuges, sophistries 
and fraudulent falsifications only in order to dissociate 
himself from violent revolution, and to conceal his renun- 
ciation of it, his desertion to the liberal labour policy, i.e., 
to the bourgeoisie. 

And he added, "That is where the trouble lies." 2 



1 Klement Gottwald, Speech at the Plenary Session of the Central 
Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, November 17, 
1948. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 44. 

381 



Why has Khrushchov so shamelessly distorted the works 
of Marx and Lenin, fabricated history and resorted to subter- 
fuges? Again, that is where the trouble lies. 



LIES CANNOT COVER UP REALITY 

The principal argument used by the leaders of the CPSU 
to justify their anti-revolutionary line of "peaceful transition" 
is that historical conditions have changed. 

With regard to the appraisal of the changes in historical 
conditions since World War II and the conclusions to be 
drawn from them, Marxist-Leninists hold entirely different 
views from those of Khrushchev. 

Marxist-Leninists hold that historical conditions have 
changed fundamentally since the War. The change is mainly 
a manifested in the great increase in the forces of proletarian 
socialism and the great weakening of the forces of imperial- 
ism. Since the War, the mighty socialist camp and a whole 
series of new and independent nationalist states have emerged, 
and there have occurred a continuous succession of armed 
revolutionary struggles, a new upsurge in the mass move- 
ments in capitalist countries and the great expansion of the 
ranks of the international communist movement. The 
international proletarian socialist revolutionary movement 
and the national democratic revolutionary movement in Asia, 
Africa and Latin America have become the two major histori- 
cal trends of our time. 

In the early post-war period, Comrade Mao Tse-tung re- 
peatedly pointed out that the world balance of forces was 
favourable to us and not to the enemy, and that this new 
situation "has opened up still wider possibilities for the 
emancipation of the working class and the oppressed peoples 

382 



of the world and has opened up still more realistic paths 
towards it". 1 
He also indicated, 

Make trouble, fail, make trouble again, fail again . . . 
till their doom; that is the logic of the imperialists and all 
reactionaries the world over in dealing with the people's 
cause, and they will never go against this logic. This is a 
Marxist law. When we say "imperialism is ferocious", 
we mean that its nature will never change, that the im- 
perialists will never lay down their butcher knives, that 
they will never become Buddhas, till their doom. 2 

Marxist-Leninists base themselves on the fact that the 
changes in post-war conditions have become increasingly 
favourable for revolution and on the law that imperialism 
and reaction will never change their nature. Therefore they 
draw the conclusion that revolution must be promoted, and 
they hold that full use must be made of this very favourable 
situation and that in the light of the specific conditions in 
different countries the development of revolutionary struggles 
must be actively promoted and preparations must be made 
to seize victory in the revolution. 

On the other hand, using the pretext of these very changes 
in post-war conditions, Khrushchov draws the conclusion that 
revolution must be opposed and repudiated, and he holds that 
as a result of the changes in the world balance of forces im- 
perialism and reaction have changed their nature, the law of 
class struggle has changed, and the common road of the 
October Revolution and the Marxist-Leninist theory of pro- 
letarian revolution have become outmoded. 



1 Mao Tse-tung, "Revolutionary Forces of the World Unite, Fight 
Against Imperialist Aggression!", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Pe- 
king, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 284. 

2 Mao Tse-tung, "Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 428. 

383 



Khrushchov and his like are spreading an Arabian Nights 
tale. They maintain: 

Now favourable international and internal conditions are 
taking shape for the working class of a number of capi- 
talist countries to accomplish the socialist revolution in 
peaceful form. 1 

They say: 

In the period between the first and second world wars, 
the reactionary bourgeoisie in many European countries, 
incessantly developing and perfecting its police-bureaucratic 
machine, savagely repressed the mass movements of the 
working people and left no possibility for the achievement 
of the socialist revolution by the peaceful road. 

But according to them the situation has now changed. 2 
They say that "basic shifts in favour of socialism in the 
relationship of forces in the international arena" now create 
the possibility of "paralyzing the intervention of interna- 
tional reaction in the affairs of countries carrying out revo- 
lution", 3 and that "this lessens the possibilities for the 
unleashing of civil war by the bourgeoisie". 4 

But the lies of Khrushchov and his like cannot cover up 
realities. 

Two outstanding facts since World War II are that the 
imperialists and the reactionaries are everywhere reinforcing 
their apparatus of violence for cruelly suppressing the masses 
and that imperialism headed by the United States is 
conducting counter-revolutionary armed intervention in all 
parts of the world. 



1 A. Butenko, "War and Revolution", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 4, 
1961. 

2 0. V. Kuusinen and others, Foundations of Marxism-Leninism, Russ. 
ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 528. 

3 A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Rev- 
olution and the Present Day", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960. 

4 A. Butenko, op. cit. 

384 



Today the United States of America has become more 
militarized than ever and has increased its troops to over 
2,700,000 men, or eleven times the 1934 total and nine times 
the 1939 total. It has so many police and secret service or- 
ganizations that even some of the big U.S. capitalists have 
had to admit that it tops the world in this respect, having 
far surpassed Hitlerite Germany. 

Britain's standing army increased from over 250,000 men 
in 1934 to over 420,000 in 1963, and its police force from 
67,000 in 1934 to 87,000 in 1963. 

France's standing army increased from 650,000 in 1934 to 
over 740,000 in 1963, and its police and security forces from 
80,000 in 1934 to 120,000 in 1963. 

Other imperialist countries and even the ordinary run of 
capitalist countries are no exceptions to this large-scale 
strengthening of the armed forces and police. 

Khrushchov is zealously using the slogan of general and 
complete disarmament to immobilize the people. He has been 
chanting it for many years now. But in actual fact there 
is not even a shadow of general and complete disarmament. 
Everywhere in the imperialist camp headed by the United 
States one finds a general and complete arms drive and an 
expansion and strengthening of the apparatus of violent sup- 
pression. 

Why are the bourgeoisie so frenziedly reinforcing their 
armed forces and police in peace time? Can it be that their 
purpose is not to suppress the mass movements of the work- 
ing people but rather to guarantee that the latter can win state 
power by peaceful means? Haven't the ruling bourgeoisie 
committed enough atrocities in the nineteen years since the 
War in employing soldiers and policemen to suppress striking 
workers and people struggling for their democratic rights? 

In the past nineteen years, U.S. imperialism has organized 
military blocs and concluded military treaties with more than 
forty countries. It has set up over 2,200 military bases and 
installations in all parts of the capitalist world. Its armed 

385 



forces stationed abroad exceed 1,000,000. Its "Strike Com- 
mand" directs a mobile land and air force, ready at all times 
to be sent anywhere to suppress the people's revolution. 

In the past nineteen years, the U.S. and other imperialists 
have not only given every support to the reactionaries of 
various countries and helped them to suppress the peoples' 
revolutionary movements; they have also directly planned 
and executed numerous counter-revolutionary armed aggres- 
sions and interventions, i.e., they have exported counter- 
revolution. U.S. imperialism, for instance, helped Chiang 
Kai-shek fight the civil war in China, sent its own troops to 
Greece and commanded the attack on the Greek people's 
liberated areas, unleashed the war of aggression in Korea, 
landed troops in Lebanon to threaten the revolution in Iraq, 
aided and abetted the Laotian reactionaries in extending civil 
war, organized and directed a so-called United Nations force 
to suppress the national independence movement in the Congo, 
and conducted counter-revolutionary invasions of Cuba. It 
is still fighting to suppress the liberation struggle of the 
people of southern Viet Nam. Recently it has used armed 
force to suppress the just struggle of the Panamanian people 
in defence of their sovereignty and participated in the armed 
intervention in Cyprus. 

Not only does U.S. imperialism take determined action to 
suppress and intervene in all people's revolutions and national 
liberation movements, but it also tries to get rid of bourgeois 
regimes which show some nationalist colouration. During 
these nineteen years, the U.S. Government has engineered 
numerous counter-revolutionary military coups d'etat in a 
number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It 
has even used violence to remove puppets of its own fostering, 
such as Ngo Dinh Diem, once they have ceased to suit its pur- 
poses — "kill the donkey as soon as you take it from the mill- 
stone", as the saying goes. 

Facts have demonstrated that nowadays in order to make 
revolutions and achieve liberation all oppressed peoples and 

386 



nations not only have to cope with violent suppression by the 
domestic reactionary ruling classes, but must prepare them- 
selves fully against armed intervention by imperialism, and 
especially U.S. imperialism. Without such preparation and 
without steadfastly rebuffing counter-revolutionary violence 
by revolutionary violence whenever necessary, revolution, let 
alone victory, is out of the question. 

Without strengthening their armed forces, without preparing 
to meet imperialist armed aggression and intervention and 
without adhering to the policy of waging struggles against im- 
perialism, countries which have won independence will not be 
able to safeguard their national independence and still less to 
ensure the advance of the revolutionary cause. 

We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since you 
talk so glibly about the new features of the post-war situation, 
why have you chosen to omit the most important and conspic- 
uous one, namely, that the U.S. and other imperialists are 
suppressing revolution everywhere? You never weary of 
talking about peaceful transition! but why have you never had 
a single word to say about how to deal with the bloated ap- 
paratus of forcible suppression built up by the imperialists 
and reactionaries? You brazenly cover up the bloody reali- 
ties of the cruel suppression of the national liberation and 
popular revolutionary movements by imperialism and reaction 
and spread the illusion that the oppressed nations and peoples 
can achieve victory by peaceful means. Isn't it obvious that 
you are trying to lull the vigilance of the people, pacify the 
angry masses with empty promises about the bright future 
and oppose their revolution, thus in fact acting as accomplices 
of imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries? 

On this question, it is useful to let John Foster Dulles, the 
late U.S. Secretary of State, be our "teacher by negative 
example". 

Dulles said in a speech on June 21, 1956 that all socialist 
countries had hitherto been established "through the use of 
violence". He then said that "the Soviet rulers now say that 

387 



they will renounce the use of violence" and that "we welcome 
and shall encourage these developments". 1 

As a faithful champion of the capitalist system, Dulles was 
of course perfectly aware of the essential role of force in class 
struggle. While welcoming Khrushchov's renunciation of 
violent revolution, he laid great stress on the bourgeoisie's 
need to strengthen its counter-revolutionary violence in order 
a to maintain its rule. He said in another speech that "of all the 
tasks of government the most basic is to protect its citizens 
[read "reactionary ruling classes"] against violence. ... So 
in every civilized community the members contribute toward 
the maintenance of a police force as an arm of law and order". 2 

Here Dulles was telling the truth. The political foundation 
of the rule of imperialism and all reaction is nothing other 
than — "a police force". So long as this foundation is unim- 
paired, nothing else is of any importance and their rule will 
not be shaken. The more the leaders of the CPSU cover up 
the fact that the bourgeoisie relies on violence for its rule and 
spread the fairy tale of peaceful transition, which was so wel- 
come to Dulles, the more they reveal their true colours as 
cronies of the imperialists in opposing revolution. 



REFUTATION OF THE "PARLIAMENTARY ROAD" 

The idea of the "parliamentary road" which was publicized 
by the revisionists of the Second International was thoroughly 
refuted by Lenin and discredited long ago. But in Khru- 
shchov's eyes, the parliamentary road seems suddenly to have 
acquired validity after World War II. 

Is this true? Of course not. 



1 J. F. Dulles, Address at the 41st Annual Convention of Kiwanis 
International, June 21, 1956. 

2 J. F. Dulles, Speech at the Annual Luncheon of the Associated 
Press on April 22, 1957, New York Times, April 23, 1957. 

388 



Events since World War II have demonstrated yet again that 
the chief component of the bourgeois state machine is armed 
force and not parliament. Parliament is only an ornament 
and a screen for bourgeois rule. To adopt or discard the par- 
liamentary system, to grant parliament greater or less power, 
to adopt one kind of electoral law or another — the choice 
between these alternatives is always dictated by the needs and 
interests of bourgeois rule. So long as the bourgeoisie controls 
the military-bureaucratic apparatus, either the acquisition of 
a "stable majority in parliament" by the proletariat through 
elections is impossible, or this "stable majority" is undepend- 
able. To realize socialism through the "parliamentary road" 
is utterly impossible and is mere deceptive talk. 

About half the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries 
are still illegal. Since these Parties have no legal status, the 
winning of a parliamentary majority is, of course, out of the 
question. 

For example, the Communist Party of Spain lives under 
White terror and has no opportunity to run in elections. It is 
pathetic and tragic that Spanish Communist leaders like Ibar- 
ruri should follow Khrushchov in advocating "peaceful transi- 
tion" in Spain. 

With all the unfair restrictions imposed by bourgeois elec- 
toral laws in those capitalist countries where Communist 
Parties are legal and can take part in elections, it is very diffi- 
cult for them to win a majority of the votes under bourgeois 
rule. And even if they get a majority of the votes, the bour- 
geoisie can prevent them from obtaining a majority of the seats 
in parliament by revising the electoral laws or by other means. 

For example, since World War II, the French monopoly 
capitalists have twice revised the electoral law, in each case 
bringing about a sharp fall in the parliamentary seats held by 
the Communist Party of France. In the parliamentary election 
in 1946, the CPF gained 182 seats. But in the election of 1951, 
the revision of the electoral law by the monopoly capitalists 
resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of CPF seats to 

389 



103, that is, there was a loss of 79 seats. In the 1956 election, 
the CPF gained 150 seats. But before the parliamentary 
election in 1958, the monopoly capitalists again revised the 
electoral law with the result that the number of seats held by 
the CPF fell very drastically to 10, that is, it lost 140 seats. 

Even if in certain circumstances a Communist Party should 
win a majority of the seats in parliament or participate in the 
government as a result of an electoral victory, it would not 
change the bourgeois nature of parliament or government, 
still less would it mean the smashing of the old and the estab- 
lishment of a new state machine. It is absolutely impossible 
to bring about a fundamental social change by relying on 
bourgeois parliaments or governments. With the state ma- 
chine under its control the reactionary bourgeoisie can nullify 
elections, dissolve parliament, expel Communists from the 
government, outlaw the Communist Party and resort to brute 
force to suppress the masses and the progressive forces. 

For instance, in 1946 the Communist Party of Chile sup- 
ported the bourgeois Radical Party in winning an electoral 
victory, and a coalition government was formed with the par- 
ticipation of Communists. At the time, the leaders of the 
Chilean Communist Party went so far as to describe this 
bourgeois-controlled government as a "people's democratic 
government". But in less than a year the bourgeoisie com- 
pelled them to quit the government, carried out mass arrests 
of Communists and in 1948 outlawed the Communist Party. 

When a workers' party degenerates and becomes a hireling 
of the bourgeoisie, the latter may permit it to have a majority 
in parliament and to form a government. This is the case 
with the bourgeois social democratic parties in certain coun- 
tries. But this sort of thing only serves to safeguard and con- 
solidate the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; it does not, and 
cannot, in the least alter the position of the proletariat as an 
oppressed and exploited class. Such facts only add testimony 
to the bankruptcy of the parliamentary road. 

390 



Events since World War II have also shown that if Com- 
munist leaders believe in the parliamentary road and fall victim 
to the incurable disease of "parliamentary cretinism", they will 
not only get nowhere but will inevitably sink into the quagmire 
of revisionism and ruin the revolutionary cause of the 
proletariat. 

There has always been a fundamental difference between 
Marxist-Leninists on the one hand and opportunists and 
revisionists on the other on the proper attitude to adopt towards 
bourgeois parliaments. 

Marxist-Leninists have always held that under certain con- 
ditions the proletarian party should take part in parliamentary 
struggle and utilize the platform of parliament for exposing 
the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie, educating the masses 
and helping to accumulate revolutionary strength. It is 
wrong to refuse to utilize this legal form of struggle when 
necessary. But the proletarian party must never substitute 
parliamentary struggle for proletarian revolution or entertain 
the illusion that the transition to socialism can be achieved 
through the parliamentary road. It must at all times concen- 
trate on mass struggles. 

Lenin said: 

The party of the revolutionary proletariat must take part 
in bourgeois parliamentarism in order to enlighten the 
masses, which can be done during elections and in the 
struggle between parties in parliament. But to limit the 
class struggle to the parliamentary struggle, or to regard the 
latter as the highest and decisive form, to which all the other 
forms of struggle are subordinate, means actually deserting 
to the side of the bourgeoisie and going against the prole- 
tariat. 1 

He denounced the revisionists of the Second International 
for chasing the shadow of parliamentarism and for abandoning 



1 V. I. Lenin, The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictator- 
ship of the Proletariat, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 36. 

391 



the revolutionary task of seizing state power. They converted 
the proletarian party into an electoral party, a parliamentary 
party, an appendage of the bourgeoisie and an instrument for 
preserving the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In advocating 
the parliamentary road, Khrushchov and his followers can 
only meet with the same fate as that of the revisionists of the 
Second International. 



REFUTATION OF "OPPOSITION TO LEFT OPPORTUNISM" 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
fabricates a tissue of lies in its treatment of the question of 
proletarian revolution. It asserts that the Chinese Communist 
Party favours "advancing the slogan of immediate proletarian 
revolution" even in the absence of a revolutionary situation, 
that it stands for abandoning "the struggle for the democratic 
rights and vital interests of the working people in capitalist 
countries", 1 that it makes armed struggle "absolute", 2 and so 
on. They frequently pin such labels as "Left opportunism", 
"Left adventurism" and "Trotskyism" on the Chinese Com- 
munist Party. 

The truth is that the leaders of the CPSU are making this 
hullabaloo in order to cover up their revisionist line which 
opposes and repudiates revolution. What they are attacking 
as "Left opportunism" is in fact nothing but the Marxist- 
Leninist revolutionary line. 

We have always maintained that a revolution cannot be made 
at will and is impossible unless a revolutionary situation objec- 
tively exists. But the outbreak and the victory of revolution 
depend not only on the existence of a revolutionary situation 



1 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the 
Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

2 "Marxism-Leninism — the Basis of Unity of the Communist Move- 
ment", editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 15, 1963. 

392 



but also on the preparations and efforts made by the subjective 
revolutionary forces. 

It is "Left" adventurism if the party of the proletariat 
does not accurately appraise both the objective condi- 
tions and subjective forces making for revolution and if it 
rashly launches a revolution before the conditions are 
ripe. But it is Right opportunism, or revisionism, if the pro- 
letarian party makes no active preparations for revolution be- 
fore the conditions are ripe, or dare not lead a revolution and 
seize state power when a revolutionary situation exists and the 
conditions are ripe. 

Until the time arrives for seizing state power, the fundamen- 
tal and most important task for the proletarian party is to 
concentrate on the painstaking work of accumulating revolu- 
tionary strength. The active leadership given in day-to-day 
struggle must have as its central aim the building up of 
revolutionary strength and the preparations for seizing victory 
in the revolution when the conditions are ripe. The prole- 
tarian party should use the various forms of day-to-day 
struggle to raise the political consciousness of the proletariat 
and the masses of the people, to train its own class forces, to 
temper its fighting capacity and to prepare for revolution 
ideologically, politically, organizationally and militarily. It is 
only in this way that it will not miss the opportunity of seizing 
victory when the conditions for revolution are ripe. Other- 
wise, the proletarian party will simply let the opportunity of 
making revolution slip by even when a revolutionary situation 
objectively exists. 

While tirelessly stressing that no revolution should be made 
in the absence of a revolutionary situation, the leaders of the 
CPSU avoid the question of how the party of the proletariat 
should conduct day-today revolutionary struggle and accu- 
mulate revolutionary strength before there is a revolutionary 
situation. In reality, they are renouncing the task of building 
up revolutionary strength and preparing for revolution on the 
pretext of the absence of a revolutionary situation. 

393 



Lenin once gave an excellent description of the renegade 
Kautsky's attitude towards the question of a revolutionary 
situation. He said of Kautsky that if the revolutionary crisis 
has arrived, "then he too is prepared to become a revolu- 
tionary! But then, let us observe, every blackguard . . . 
would proclaim himself a revolutionary!" "If it has not, then 
Kautsky will turn his back on revolution!" As Lenin pointed 
out, Kautsky was like a typical philistine, and the difference 
between a revolutionary Marxist and a philistine is that the 
Marxist has the courage "to prepare the proletariat and all the 
toiling and exploited masses for it [revolution]". 1 People can 
judge for themselves whether or not Khrushchov and his 
followers resemble the Kautsky type of philistine denounced 
by Lenin. 

We have always held that the proletarian parties in the capi- 
talist countries must actively lead the working class and the 
working people in struggles to oppose monopoly capital, 
to defend democratic rights, to improve living conditions, to 
oppose imperialist arms expansion and war preparations, to 
defend world peace and to give vigorous support to the revolu- 
tionary struggles of the oppressed nations. 

In the capitalist countries which are subject to bullying, 
control, intervention and aggression by U.S. imperialism, the 
proletarian parties should raise the national banner of opposi- 
tion to U.S. imperialism and direct the edge of the mass 
struggle mainly against U.S. imperialism as well as against 
monopoly capital and other reactionary forces at home which 
are betraying the national interests. They should unite all 
the forces that can be united and form a united front against 
U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. 

In recent years the working class and the working people in 
many capitalist countries have been waging broad mass strug- 
gles which not only hit monopoly capital and other reactionary 
forces at home, but render powerful support to the revolu- 

1 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 103. 

394 



tionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American 
peoples and to the countries of the socialist camp. We have 
always fully appreciated this contribution. 

While actively leading immediate struggles, Communists 
should link them with the struggle for long-range and general 
interests, educate the masses in a proletarian revolutionary 
spirit, ceaselessly raise their political consciousness and accu- 
mulate revolutionary strength in order to seize victory in 
revolution when the time is opportune. Our view is in full 
accord with Marxism-Leninism. 

In opposition to the views of Marxist-Leninists, the leaders 
of the CPSU spread the notion that "in the highly-developed 
capitalist countries, democratic and socialist tasks are so closely 
intertwined that there, least of all, is it possible to draw any 
sort of lines of demarcation. 1 This is to substitute immediate 
for long-range struggles and reformism for proletarian 
revolution. 

Lenin said that "no reform can be durable, genuine and 
serious if it is not supported by the revolutionary methods of 
struggle of the masses". A workers' party that "does not 
combine this struggle for reforms with the revolutionary 
methods of the workers' movement may be transformed into 
a sect, and may become torn away from the masses, and . . . 
this is the most serious threat to the success of genuine revolu 
ionary socialism". 2 

He said that "every democratic demand ... is, for the class 
conscious workers, subordinated to the higher interests of 
socialism". 3 Further, in The State and Revolution Lenin 
quoted Engels as follows. The forgetfulness of the great main 
standpoint in the momentary interests of the day, the strug- 

1 A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Revolu- 
tion and the Present Day", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "To the Secretary of the 'Socialist Propaganda 
League' ", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXI, p. 389. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Econo- 
mism' ", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 
1943, Vol. V, p. 392. 

395 



gling and striving for the success of the moment without 
consideration for the later consequences, the sacrifice of the 
future of the movement for its present was opportunism, and 
dangerous opportunism at that. 

It was precisely on this ground that Lenin criticized Kautsky 
for "praising reformism and submission to the imperialist 
bourgeoisie, and blaming and renouncing revolution". 1 He 
said that "the proletariat fights for the revolutionary over- 
throw of the imperialist bourgeoisie", while Kautsky "fights 
for the reformist 'improvement' of imperialism, for adaptation 
to it, while submitting to it". 2 

Lenin's criticism of Kautsky is an apt portrayal of the 
present leaders of the CPSU. 

We have always held that in order to lead the working class 
and the masses of the people in revolution, the party of the 
proletariat must master all forms of struggle and be able to 
combine different forms, swiftly substituting one form for 
another as the conditions of struggle change. It will be in- 
vincible in all circumstances only if it masters all forms of 
struggle, such as peaceful and armed, open and secret, legal 
and illegal, parliamentary and mass struggle, as well as both 
domestic and international struggle. 

The victory of the Chinese revolution was precisely the 
result of the skilful and thorough mastery of all forms of 
struggle — in keeping with the specific characteristics of the 
Chinese revolution — by the Communists of China who learned 
from the historical experience of international proletarian 
struggle. Armed struggle was the chief form in the Chinese 
revolution, but the revolution could not have been victorious 
without the use of other forms of struggle. 

In the course of the Chinese revolution the Chinese Com- 
munist Party fought on two fronts. It fought both the Right, 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade 
Kautsky", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, 
Part 2, p. 95. 

2 Ibid. 

396 



deviation of legalism and the "Left" illegalist deviation, and 
properly combined legal with illegal struggle. In the country 
as a whole, it correctly combined struggle in the revolutionary 
base areas with struggle in the Kuomintang areas, while in the 
Kuomintang areas it correctly combined open and secret work, 
made full use of legal opportunities and kept strictly to Party 
rules governing secret work. The Chinese revolution has 
brought forth a complexity and variety of forms of struggle 
suited to its own specific conditions. 

From its long practical experience, the Chinese Communist 
Party is fully aware that it is wrong to reject legal struggle, 
to restrict the Party's work within narrow confines and thereby 
to alienate itself from the masses. But one should never 
tolerate the legalism peddled by the revisionists. The revi- 
sionists reject armed struggle and all other illegal struggle, 
engage only in legal struggle and activity and confine the 
Party's activities and mass struggles within the framework 
allowed by the ruling classes. They debase and even discard 
the Party's basic programme, renounce revolution and adapt 
themselves solely to reactionary systems of law. 

As Lenin rightly pointed out in his criticism, revisionists 
such as Kautsky were degraded and dulled by bourgeois 
legality. "For a mess of pottage given to the organizations that 
are recognized by the present police law, the proletarian right 
of revolution was sold." 1 

While the leaders of the CPSU and their followers talk about 
the use of all forms of struggle, in reality they stand for 
legalism and discard the objective of the proletarian revolution 
on the pretext of changing forms of struggle. This is again 
substituting Kautskyism for Leninism. 

The leaders of the CPSU often make use of Lenin's great 
work, " 'Left- Wing' Communism — an Infantile Disorder", to 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Collapse of the Second International", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII, 
p. 314. 

397 



justify their erroneous line and have made it a "basis" for their 
attacks on the Chinese Communist Party. 

This is of course futile. Like all his other works, this book 
of Lenin's can only serve as a weapon for Marxist-Leninists in 
the fight against various kinds of opportunism and can never 
serve as an instrument of revisionist apologetics. 

When Lenin criticized the "Left-wing" infantile disorder 
and asked the party of the proletariat to be skilful in applying 
revolutionary tactics and to do better in preparing for revolu- 
tions, he had already broken with the revisionists of the Second 
International and had founded the Third International. 

Indeed, in " 'Left- Wing' Communism — an Infantile Disor- 
der", he stated that the main enemy of the international work- 
ing-class movement at the time was Kautsky's type of oppor- 
tunism. He repeatedly stressed that unless a break was made 
with revisionism there could be no talk of how to master rev- 
olutionary tactics. 

Those comrades whom Lenin criticized for their "Left-wing" 
infantile disorder all wanted revolution, while the latter-day 
revisionist Khrushchov is against it, has therefore to be in- 
cluded in the same category as Kautsky and has no right 
whatsoever to speak on the question of combating the "Left- 
wing" infantile disorder. 

It is most absurd for the leadership of the CPSU to pin the 
label of "Trotskyism" on the Chinese Communist Party. In 
fact, it is Khrushchov himself who has succeeded to the mantle 
of Trotskyism and who stands with the Trotskyites of today. 

Trotskyism manifests itself in different ways on different 
questions and often wears the mask of "ultra-Leftism", but its 
essence is opposition to revolution, repudiation of revolution. 

As far as the fundamental fact of their opposition to the 
proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat 
is concerned, Trotskyism and the revisionism of the Second 
International are virtually the same. This is why Stalin 
repeatedly said that Trotskyism is a variety of Menshevism, is 

398 



Kautskyism and social democracy, and is the advanced detach- 
ment of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. 

In its essence, the present-day revisionism of Khrushchov 
also opposes and repudiates revolution. Therefore, the only 
logical conclusion is that Khrushchov 's revisionism is not only 
cut from the same cloth as Kautskyism, but also converges 
with Trotskyism to oppose revolution. Khrushchov had better 
pin the label of Trotskyism on himself. 



TWO DIFFERENT LINES, TWO DIFFERENT RESULTS 

History is the most telling witness. Rich experience has 
been gained since World War II both in the international com- 
munist movement and in the peoples' revolutionary struggles. 
There has been successful as well as unsuccessful experience. 
Communists and the revolutionary people of all countries need 
to draw the right conclusions from this historical experience. 

The countries in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America 
which have succeeded in making a socialist revolution since 
the War have done so by following the revolutionary Marxist- 
Leninist line and the road of the October Revolution. Now, 
in addition to the experience of the October Revolution, there 
is the experience of the revolutions of China, the socialist 
countries in Eastern Europe, Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba. The 
victorious revolutions in these countries have enriched and de- 
veloped Marxism-Leninism and the experience of the October 
Revolution. 

From China to Cuba, all these revolutions without exception 
were won by armed struggle and by fighting against armed im- 
perialist aggression and intervention. 

The Chinese people were victorious in their revolution after 
waging revolutionary wars for twenty-two years, including 
the three years of the People's Liberation War, in which they 
thoroughly defeated the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries who 
were backed up to the hilt by U.S. imperialism. 

399 



The Korean people carried on fifteen years of revolutionary 
armed struggle against Japanese imperialism beginning in the 
1930's, built up and expanded their revolutionary armed forces, 
and finally achieved victory with the help of the Soviet Army. 
After the founding of the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea, it took another three years of war against U.S. im- 
perialist armed aggression before the victory of their revolu- 
tion could be consolidated. 

The Vietnamese people seized state power by the armed 
uprising of August 1945. Immediately afterwards, they had 
to begin fighting a war of national liberation lasting eight 
years against French imperialism and to defeat the U.S. im- 
perialist military intervention, and only then did they triumph 
in northern Viet Nam. The people of southern Viet Nam are 
still waging a heroic struggle against U.S. imperialist armed 
aggression. 

The Cuban people started their armed uprising in 1953, and 
later it took more than two years of people's revolutionary war 
before they overthrew the rule of U.S. imperialism and its 
Cuban puppet, Batista. After their victorious revolution, the 
Cuban people smashed armed invasions by U.S. imperialist 
mercenaries and safeguarded the fruits of revolution. 

The other socialist countries too were all established through 
armed struggle. 

What are the main lessons of the successful proletarian rev- 
olutions in the countries extending from China to Cuba after 
World War II? 

1. Violent revolution is a universal law of proletarian rev- 
olution. To realize the transition to socialism, the proletariat 
must wage armed struggle, smash the old state machine and 
establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

2. The peasants are the most dependable allies of the 
proletariat. The proletariat must closely rely on the peasants, 
establish a broad united front based on the worker-peasant 
alliance, and insist upon proletarian leadership in the revolu- 
tion. 

400 



3. U.S. imperialism is the arch enemy of people's revolu- 
tion in all countries. The proletariat must hold high the na- 
tional banner of opposition to U.S. imperialism and have the 
courage to fight with firm resolve against the U.S. imperialists 
and their lackeys in its own country. 

4. The revolution of the oppressed nations is an indis- 
pensable ally of the proletarian revolution. The workers of 
all countries must unite, and they must unite with all the op- 
pressed nations and all the forces opposed to imperialism and 
its lackeys to form a broad international united front. 

5. To make a revolution, it is essential to have a revolu- 
tionary party. The triumph of the proletarian revolution and 
the triumph of the dictatorship of the proletariat are impos- 
sible without a revolutionary proletarian party established in 
accordance with the revolutionary theory and style of Marxism- 
Leninism, a party which is irreconcilable towards revisionism 
and opportunism and which takes a revolutionary attitude 
towards the reactionary ruling classes and their state power. 

To insist on revolutionary armed struggle is of primary im- 
portance not only to the proletarian revolution but also to the 
national-democratic revolution of the oppressed nations. The 
victory of the Algerian national liberation war has set a good 
example in this respect. 

The whole history of the proletarian parties since the War 
has shown that those parties which have followed the line of 
revolution, adopted the correct strategy and tactics and actively 
led the masses in revolutionary struggle are able to lead the 
revolutionary cause forward step by step to victory and grow 
vigorously in strength. Conversely, all those parties which have 
adopted a non-revolutionary opportunist line and accepted 
Khrushchov's line of "peaceful transition" are doing serious 
damage to the revolutionary cause and turning themselves into 
lifeless and reformist parties, or becoming completely degen- 
erate and serving as tools of the bourgeoisie against the pro- 
letariat. There is no lack of such instances. 

401 



The comrades of the Communist Party of Iraq were once full 
of revolutionary ardour. But acceptance of Khrushchov's re- 
visionist line was forced on them by outside pressure, and they 
lost their vigilance against counter-revolution. In the armed 
counter-revolutionary coup d'etat, leading comrades heroically 
sacrificed their lives, thousands of Iraqi Communists and rev- 
olutionaries were massacred in cold blood, the powerful Iraqi 
Communist Party was dispersed, and the revolutionary cause 
of Iraq suffered a grave setback. This is a tragic lesson in the 
annals of proletarian revolution, a lesson written in blood. 

The leaders of the Algerian Communist Party danced to the 
baton of Khrushchov and of the leadership of the French Com- 
munist Party and completely accepted the revisionist line 
against armed struggle. But the Algerian people refused to 
listen to this rubbish. They courageously fought for national 
independence against imperialism, waged a war of national 
liberation for over seven years and finally compelled the 
French Government to recognize Algeria's independence. But 
the Algerian Communist Party, which followed the revisionist 
line of the leadership of the CPSU, forfeited the confidence of 
the Algerian people and its position in Algerian political life. 

During the Cuban revolution, some leaders of the Popular 
Socialist Party refused to pursue the revolutionary Marxist- 
Leninist line, the correct line of revolutionary armed struggle, 
but, following Khrushchov's revisionist line, advocated "peace- 
ful transition" and opposed violent revolution. In these 
circumstances, Marxist-Leninists outside and inside the Cuban 
Party, represented by Comrade Fidel Castro, rightly bypassed 
those leaders who opposed violent revolution, joined hands and 
made revolution with the revolutionary Cuban people, and 
finally won a victory of great historic significance. 

Certain leaders of the Communist Party of France of whom 
Thorez is representative have long been pursuing a revisionist 
line, have publicized the "parliamentary road" in response to 
Khrushchov's baton, and have actually reduced the Communist 
Party to the level of a social democratic party. They have 

402 



ceased to give active support to the revolutionary aspirations 
of the people and rolled up the national banner of opposition 
to U.S. imperialism. The result of their pursuit of this revi- 
sionist line is that the Communist Party, which once had great 
influence among the people, has become increasingly isolated 
from the masses and has deteriorated more and more. 

Certain leaders of the Indian Communist Party, typified by 
Dange, have long pursued a revisionist line, hauled down the 
banner of revolution and failed to lead the masses in national 
and democratic revolutionary struggles. The Dange clique has 
slid farther and farther down the path of revisionism and de- 
generated into national chauvinists, into tools of the reaction- 
ary policies of India's big landlords and big bourgeoisie, and 
into renegades from the proletariat. 

The record shows that the two fundamentally different lines 
lead to two fundamentally different results. All these lessons 
merit close study. 



FROM BROWDER AND TITO TO KHRUSHCHOV 

Khrushchov's revisionism has deep historical and social 
roots and bears the imprint of the times. As Lenin said, "op- 
portunism is no accident, no sin, no slip, no betrayal on the 
part of individual persons, but the social product of a whole 
historical epoch". 1 

While making great progress since World War II, the in- 
ternational communist movement has produced its antithesis 
within its own ranks — an adverse current of revisionism which 
is opposed to socialism, Marxism-Leninism and proletarian rev- 
olution. This adverse current was chiefly represented first 
by Browder, later by Tito and now by Khrushchov. Khru- 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Collapse of the Second International", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. 
XVIII, p. 310. 

403 



shchov's revisionism is nothing but the continuation and de- 
velopment of Browderism and Titoism. 

Browder began to reveal his revisionism around 1935. He 
worshipped bourgeois democracy, abandoned making the nec- 
essary criticisms of the bourgeois government and regarded 
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a fine thing for Com- 
munists, his slogan being "Communism Is Twentieth Century 
Americanism". 1 

With the formation of the international and domestic anti- 
fascist united fronts during World War II, he became obsessed 
with bourgeois "democracy", "progress" and "reason", pros- 
trated himself before the bourgeoisie and degenerated into an 
out-and-out capitulationist. 

Browder propagated a whole set of revisionist views which 
embellished the bourgeoisie and opposed and negated revolu- 
tion. 

He declared that the Teheran Declaration of the Soviet 
Union, the United States and Britain ushered in an epoch of 
"long-term confidence and collaboration" between capitalism 
and socialism and was capable of guaranteeing "a stable peace 
for generations". 2 

He spread the notion that the international agreements of 
the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain represented 
"the most vital interests of every nation and every people in 
the world without exception" 3 and that the perspective of inner 
chaos "is incompatible with the perspective of international 
order". Therefore, it was necessary to oppose "an explosion 
of class conflict" within the country and "to minimize, and 
to place definite limits upon" internal class struggled. 4 



1 Cited in William Foster's History of the Communist Party of the 
United States, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1952, p. 337. 

2 Earl Browder, Teheran, Our Path in War and Peace, Eng. ed., In- 
ternational Publishers, New York, 1944, pp. 23 and 27. 

3 Ibid., p. 31. 

4 Earl Browder, Teheran and America, Eng. ed., Workers Library 
Publishers, New York, 1944, pp. 17 and 28. 

404 



He spread the view that a new war would be "a real cata- 
strophic smash-up of a large part of the world" and "may 
throw . . . most of the world back into barbarism for 50 or 100 
years", and that the "emphasis upon agreement that transcends 
all class divisions" 1 was necessary in order to wipe out the dis- 
aster of war. 

He advocated relying "entirely upon democratic persuasion 
and conviction" 2 to realize socialism, and declared that after 
World War II certain countries "have gained the conditions in 
which a peaceful transition to socialism has become possible". 3 

He negated the independent role of the proletarian parties, 
saying that "the practical political aims they [the Communists] 
hold will for a long time be in agreement on all essential points 
with the aims of a much larger body of non-Communists". 4 

Guided by these ideas, he dissolved the Communist Party of 
the U.S.A. 

For a time, Browder's revisionism led the revolutionary 
cause of the American proletariat to the brink of the precipice, 
and it contaminated the proletarian parties of other countries 
with the poison of liquidationism. 

Browder's revisionist line was opposed by many American 
Communists headed by Comrade William Z. Foster and was 
rejected and repudiated by many fraternal Parties. However, 
the revisionist trend represented by Browderism was not thor- 
oughly criticized and liquidated by the international com- 
munist movement as a whole. In the new circumstances after 
the War, the revisionist trend developed anew among the Com- 
munist ranks in certain countries. 



'Earl Browder, Communists and National Unity, Eng. ed., Workers 
Library Publishers, New York, 1944, pp. 9-10. 

2 Earl Browder, The Road to Victory, Eng. ed., Workers Library 
Publishers, New York, 1941, p. 22. 

3 Earl Browder, World Communism and U.S. Foreign Policy, Eng. ed., 
published by the Author, New York City, 1948, p. 19. 

4 Earl Browder, Teheran, Our Path in War and Peace, Eng. ed., In- 
ternational Publishers, New York, 1944, p. 117. 

405 



In the capitalist countries, the growth of the revisionist 
trend first manifested itself in the fact that the leaders of 
certain Communist Parties abandoned the revolutionary 
Marxist-Leninist line and embraced the line of "peaceful tran- 
sition. This line is clearly typified in Togliatti's theory of 
structural reform, which advocates the proletariat's attainment 
of the leadership of the state through the legal channels of 
bourgeois democracy and the socialist transformation of the 
national economy through such nationalization and planning 
as serve monopoly capital. According to this line, it is pos- 
sible to establish new socialist relations of production and 
make the transition to socialism without smashing the bour- 
geois state machine. In practice, this amounts to making com- 
munism degenerate into social democracy. 

In the socialist countries, the revisionist trend first appeared 
in Yugoslavia. Capitulation to U.S. imperialism is an impor- 
tant characteristic of Titoite revisionism. The Tito clique have 
sold themselves body and soul to U.S. imperialism; they have 
not only restored capitalism in Yugoslavia, but have become an 
imperialist instrument for undermining the socialist camp and 
the international communist movement and are playing the 
role of a special detachment of U.S. imperialism for sabotaging 
world revolution. 

In their efforts to serve U.S. imperialism and to oppose and 
abolish proletarian revolution, the Tito clique have outspo- 
kenly asserted that violent revolution has become "increasingly 
superfluous as a means of resolving social contradictions" 1 and 
that the "evolutionary process of development toward social- 
ism" through a bourgeois parliament "is not only possible but 
has already become a real fact". 2 They virtually equate capi- 



1 Ilya Kosanovic, Historical Materialism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, 
p. 352. 

2 Edvard Kardelj, "Socialist Democracy in Yugoslav Practice", a 
lecture delivered before activists of the Norwegian Labour Party in 
Oslo on October 8, 1954. 

406 



talism with socialism, asserting that the present-day world "as 
a whole has deeply 'plunged' into socialism, become socialist". 1 
They also say that "now the question — socialism or capitalism 
is already solved on a world scale". 2 

Browderite revisionism, the theory of structural reform and 
Titoite revisionism — these have been the chief manifestations 
of the revisionist trend since World War II. 

Between the 20th and the 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, 
Khrushchov's revisionist line of "peaceful transition", "peace- 
ful coexistence" and "peaceful competition" became a com- 
plete system. He has been hawking this stuff everywhere as 
his "new creation". Yet it is nothing new but is merely a re- 
hashed and meretricious combination of Browderite revision- 
ism, the theory of structural reform and Titoite revisionism. 
In international relations, Khrushchov's revisionism practises 
capitulation to U.S. imperialism; in the imperialist and capi- 
talist countries it practises capitulation to the reactionary 
ruling classes; in the socialist countries it encourages the de- 
velopment of capitalist forces. 

If Bernstein, Kautsky and the other revisionists of the Sec- 
ond International ran in a single line and belonged to the 
same family around the time of World War I, then the same 
is true of Browder, Tito and Khrushchov after World War II. 

Browder has made this point clear. He wrote in 1960, 
"Khrushchov has now adopted the 'heresy' for which I was 
kicked out of the Communist Party in 1945." And he added 
that Khrushchov's new policy "is almost word for word the 
same line I advocated fifteen years ago. So my crime has be- 
come — at least for the moment — the new orthodoxy". 3 



1 Mialko Todorovic, "On the Declaration Concerning Relations Be- 
tween the LCY and the CPSU", Komunist, Belgrade, Nos. 7-8, 1956. 

2 Mirko Perovic, Politicka Ekonomija, 2nd ed., Belgrade, 1958, p. 466. 

3 Earl Browder, "How Stalin Ruined the American Communist 
Party". Harper's Magazine, March 1960. 

407 



Khrushchov himself has admitted that he and the Tito clique 
"belong to one and the same idea and are guided by the same 
theory". 1 

In the nature of the case, Khrushchov's revisionism is even 
more pernicious than the revisionism of Bernstein, Kautsky, 
Browder and Tito. Why? Because the USSR is the first social- 
ist state, a large country in the socialist camp and the native 
land of Leninism. The CPSU is a large party created by Lenin 
and in the international communist movement it enjoys a 
prestige shaped by history. Khrushchov is exploiting his posi- 
tion as the leader of the CPSU and of the Soviet Union to push 
through his revisionist line. 

He describes his revisionist line as a "Leninist" line and 
utilizes the prestige of the great Lenin and of the great Bol- 
shevik Party to confuse and deceive people. 

Exploiting the inherited prestige of the CPSU and the posi- 
tion of a large party and a large country, he has been waving 
his baton and employing all kinds of political, economic and 
diplomatic measures to force others to accept his revisionist 
line. 

In line with the imperialist policy of buying over the labour 
aristocracy, he is buying over certain bourgeoisified Com- 
munists in the international communist movement who have 
betrayed Marxism-Leninism and inducing them to acclaim and 
serve the anti-revolutionary line of the leaders of the CPSU. 

That is why all other revisionists, whether past or present, 
are dwarfed by Khrushchov. 

As the Declaration of 1957 points out, the social source of 
modern revisionism is surrender to external imperialist pres- 
sure and acceptance of domestic bourgeois influence. 

Like the old-line revisionists, the modern revisionists answer 
to the description given by Lenin: ". . . objectively, they are 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni 
in Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963. 

408 



a political detachment of the bourgeoisie, . . . they are transmit- 
ters of its influence, its agents in the labour movement." 1 

The economic basis of the emergence of modern revisionism, 
like that of old-line revisionism, is in the words of Lenin "an 
insignificant section of the 'top' of the labour movements". 2 

Modern revisionism is the product of the policies of im- 
perialism and of international monopoly capital which are both 
headed by the United States. Terrified by the policy of nuclear 
blackmail and corrupted by the policy of buying over, the mod- 
ern revisionists are serving as the pawns of U.S. imperialism 
and its servile followers in opposing revolution. 

The revisionist Khrushchov is also scared out of his wits by 
the hysterical war cries of the U.S. imperialists, and he thinks 
that this "Noah's ark", the earth, is threatened with destruc- 
tion at any moment and he has completely lost confidence in 
the future of mankind. Proceeding from national egoism, he 
fears that revolutions by the oppressed classes and nations 
might create trouble for him and implicate him. Therefore, he 
tries to oppose every revolution by all means and, as in the case 
of the Congo, does not scruple to take joint action with U.S. 
imperialism in stamping out a people's revolution. He thinks 
that by so doing he can avoid risks and at the same time con- 
spire with U.S. imperialism to divide the world into spheres of 
influence, thus killing two birds with one stone. All this 
only goes to show that Khrushchov is the greatest capitula- 
tionist in history. The enforcement of Khrushchov's pernicious 
policy will inevitably result in inestimable damage to the great 
Soviet Union itself. 

Why has Khrushchov's revisionism emerged in the Soviet 
Union, a socialist state with a history of several decades? 



'V. I. Lenin, "The Collapse of the Second International", Collected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII, 
p. 310. 

2 V I. Lenin, "Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second Inter- 
national", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New 
York, 1930, Vol. XVIII, p. 389. 

409 



Actually, this is not so strange. For in every socialist country 
the question of who wins over whom — socialism or capitalism 
— can only be gradually settled over a very long historical 
period. So long as there are capitalist forces and there are 
classes in society, there is soil for the growth of revisionism. 

Khrushchov asserts that in the Soviet Union classes have 
been abolished, the danger of capitalist restoration is ruled out 
and the building of communism is under way. All these as- 
sertions are lies. 

In fact, as a result of Khrushchov 's revisionist rule, of the 
Open declaration that the Soviet state has changed its nature 
and is no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, and of the 
execution of a whole series of erroneous domestic and foreign 
policies, the capitalist forces in Soviet society have become a 
deluge sweeping over all fields of life in the USSR, including 
the political, economic, cultural and ideological fields. The 
social source of Khrushchov's revisionism lies precisely in the 
capitalist forces which are ceaselessly spreading in the Soviet 
Union. 

Khrushchov's revisionism represents and serves these cap- 
italist forces. Therefore, it will never bring communism to 
the Soviet people; on the contrary, it is seriously jeopardizing 
the fruits of socialism and is opening the floodgates for the 
restoration of capitalism. This is the very road of "peaceful 
evolution" craved by U.S. imperialism. 

The whole history of the dictatorship of the proletariat tells 
us that peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism is im- 
possible. However, there is already the Yugoslav precedent 
for the "peaceful evolution" of socialism back into capitalism. 
Now Khrushchov's revisionism is leading the Soviet Union 
along this road. 

This is the gravest lesson in the history of the dictatorship 
of the proletariat. All Marxist-Leninists, all revolutionaries 
and the generations to come must under no circumstances 
forget this great lesson. 

410 



OUR HOPES 

Only eight years have elapsed since the 20th Congress of the 
CPSU. In this extremely short period of history, Khrushchov's 
revisionism has inflicted very great and grave damage on the 
Soviet Union and the revolutionary cause of the international 
proletariat. 

Now is the time — now it is high time — to repudiate and 
liquidate Khrushchov's revisionism! 

Here, we would give the leading comrades of the CPSU a 
piece of advice: Since so many opportunists and revisionists 
have been thrown on to the rubbish heap of history, why must 
you obdurately follow their example? 

Here, too, we express the hope that those leading comrades 
of other fraternal Parties who have committed revisionist 
errors will think this over: What have they gained by follow- 
ing the revisionist line of the leaders of the CPSU? We un- 
derstand that, excepting those who have fallen deep into the 
revisionist quagmire, quite a number of comrades have been 
confused and deceived, or compelled to follow the wrong path. 
We believe that all those who are proletarian revolutionaries 
will eventually choose the revolutionary line and reject the 
anti-revolutionary line, will eventually choose Marxism- 
Leninism and reject revisionism. We entertain very great 
hopes in this regard. 

Revisionism can never stop the wheel of history, the wheel 
of revolution. Revisionist leaders who do not make revolution 
themselves can never prevent the genuine Marxists and the 
revolutionary people from rising in revolution. In "The Prole- 
tarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" Lenin wrote 
that when Kautsky became a renegade, the German Marxist 
Liebknecht could only express his appeal to the working class 
in this way — "to push aside such 'leaders,' to free themselves 
from their stultifying and debasing propaganda, to rise in re- 

411 



volt in spite of them! without them, and march over their 
heads towards revolutionV 1 

When the Second International's brand of revisionism pre- 
vailed in many Parties in Europe, Lenin attached great signif- 
icance to the views of the French Communist Paul Golay. 
Golay said: 

Our adversaries talked loudly of the bankruptcy of So- 
cialism. That is going a bit too fast. Still, who would dare 
to assert that they are entirely wrong? What is dying at 
present is not Socialism at all, but one variety of socialism, a 
sugary socialism without the spirit of idealism and without 
passion, with the ways of a paunchy official and of a substan- 
tial paterfamilias, a socialism without boldness or fierce en- 
thusiasm, a devotee of statistics with its nose buried in 
friendly agreements with capitalism, a socialism which is 
preoccupied solely with reforms and which has sold its birth- 
right for a mess of pottage, a socialism which in the eyes 
of the bourgeoisie is a throttle on the popular impatience 
and an automatic brake on proletarian audacity. 2 

What a superb description! Lenin called it the honest voice 
of a French Communist. People now ask: Is not modern revi- 
sionism precisely the "variety of socialism" which is dying? 
They will soon hear the resounding ring of the honest voices 
of innumerable Communists inside the Parties dominated by 
revisionism. 

"A thousand sails pass by the shipwreck; ten thousand 
saplings shoot up beyond the withered tree." Bogus socialism 
is dying, whereas scientific socialism is bursting with youthful 
vigour and is advancing in bigger strides than ever. Revolu- 
tionary socialism with its vitality will overcome all difficulties 
and obstacles and advance step by step towards victory until 
it has won the whole world. 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 105. 

2 The Socialism Which Is Dying and the Socialism Which Must Be 
Reborn, Lausanne, 1915. 

412 



Let us wind up this article with the concluding words of the 
Communist Manifesto: 

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. 
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by 
the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let 
the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The 
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have 
a world to win. 

"WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" 



ON KHRUSHCHOV'S 

PHONEY COMMUNISM AND 

ITS HISTORICAL LESSONS 

FOR THE WORLD 

Ninth Comment on the Open Letter of 

the Central Committee 

of the CPSU 



by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao 
(People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) 



(July 4, 1964) 



THE theories of the proletarian revolution and the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat are the quintessence of Marxism- 
Leninism. The questions of whether revolution should be 
upheld or opposed and whether the dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat should be upheld or opposed have always been the focus 
of struggle between Marxism-Leninism and all brands of 
revisionism and are now the focus of struggle between Marxist- 
Leninists the world over and the revisionist Khrushchov clique. 

At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, the revisionist Khrush- 
chov clique developed their revisionism into a complete system 
not only by rounding off their anti-revolutionary theories of 
"peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competition" and "peaceful 
transition" but also by declaring that the dictatorship of the 
proletariat is no longer necessary in the Soviet Union and 
advancing the absurd theories of the "state of the whole 
people" and the "party of the entire people". 

The Programme put forward by the revisionist Khrushchov 
clique at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU is a programme of 
phoney communism, a revisionist programme against pro- 
letarian revolution and for the abolition of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat and the proletarian party. 

The revisionist Khrushchov clique abolish the dictatorship 
of the proletariat behind the camouflage of the "state of the 
whole people", change the proletarian character of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union behind the camouflage of 
the "party of the entire people" and pave the way for the 
restoration of capitalism behind that of "full-scale communist 
construction". 

In its Proposal Concerning the General Line of the Inter- 
national Communist Movement dated June 14, 1963, the 
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China pointed 
out that it is most absurd in theory and extremely harmful 

417 



in practice to substitute the "state of the whole people" for 
the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the "party 
of the entire people" for the vanguard party of the proletariat. 
This substitution is a great historical retrogression which 
makes any transition to communism impossible and helps only 
to restore capitalism. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU 
and the press of the Soviet Union resort to sophistry in self- 
justification and charge that our criticisms of the "state of 
the whole people" and the "party of the entire people" are 
allegations "far removed from Marxism", "betray complete 
isolation from Soviet life" and are a demand that they "return 
to the past". 

Well, let us ascertain who is actually far removed from 
Marxism-Leninism, what Soviet life is actually like and who 
actually wants the Soviet Union to return to the past. 



SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP 
OF THE PROLETARIAT 

What is the correct conception of socialist society? Do 
classes and class struggle exist throughout the stage of social- 
ism? Should the dictatorship of the proletariat be maintained 
and the socialist revolution be carried through to the end? 
Or should the dictatorship of the proletariat be abolished so 
as to pave the way for capitalist restoration? These questions 
must be answered correctly according to the basic theory 
of Marxism-Leninism and the historical experience of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. 

The replacement of capitalist society by socialist society is 
a great leap in the historical development of human society. 
Socialist society covers the important historical period of 
transition from class to classless society. It is by going through 
socialist society that mankind will enter communist society. 

418 



The socialist system is incomparably superior to the 
capitalist system. In socialist society, the dictatorship of the 
proletariat replaces bourgeois dictatorship and the public 
ownership of the means of production replaces private owner- 
ship. The proletariat, from being an oppressed and exploited 
class, turns into the ruling class and a fundamental change 
takes place in the social position of the working people. 
Exercising dictatorship over a few exploiters only, the state 
of the dictatorship of the proletariat practises the broadest 
democracy among the masses of the working people, a 
democracy which is impossible in capitalist society. The 
nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture 
open wide vistas for the vigorous development of the social 
productive forces, ensuring a rate of growth incomparably 
greater than that in any older society. 

However, one cannot but see that socialist society is a 
society born out of capitalist society and is only the first 
phase of communist society. It is not yet a fully mature com- 
munist society in the economic and other fields. It is 
inevitably stamped with the birthmarks of capitalist society. 
When defining socialist society Marx said: 

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, 
not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the 
contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which 
is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intel- 
lectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old 
society from whose womb it emerges. 1 

Lenin also pointed out that in socialist society, which is the 
first phase of communism, "Communism cannot as yet be fully 
ripe economically and entirely free from traditions or traces 
of capitalism". 2 

1 Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of 
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow 1951, Vol. II, 
p. 21. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 302. 

419 



In socialist society, the differences between workers and 
peasants, between town and country, and between manual 
and mental labourers still remain, bourgeois rights are not yet 
completely abolished, it is not possible "at once to eliminate 
the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of articles 
of consumption 'according to the amount of labour performed' 
(and not according to needs)", 1 and therefore differences in 
wealth still exist. The disappearance of these differences, 
phenomena and bourgeois rights can only be gradual and long 
drawn out. As Marx said, only after these differences have 
vanished and bourgeois rights have completely disappeared, 
will it be possible to realize full communism with its principle, 
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his 
needs". 

Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the Soviet Union, 
China and other socialist countries all teach us that socialist 
society covers a very, very long historical stage. Throughout 
this stage, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the 
proletariat goes on and the question of "who will win" be- 
tween the roads of capitalism and socialism remains, as does 
the danger of the restoration of capitalism. 

In its Proposal Concerning the General Line of the Inter- 
national Communist Movement dated June 14, 1963, the 
Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party states: 

For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes 
power, class struggle continues as an objective law inde- 
pendent of man's will, differing only in form from what 
it was before the taking of power. 

After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number 
of times that: 

a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand 
and one ways to recover the "paradise" they have been 
deprived of. 



1 Ibid., p. 296. 

420 



b. New elements of capitalism are constantly and spon- 
taneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere. 

c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements 
may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among 
government functionaries as a result of bourgeois in- 
fluence and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the 
petty bourgeoisie. 

d. The external conditions for the continuance of class 
struggle within a socialist country are encirclement by 
international capitalism, the imperialists' threat of armed 
intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish 
peaceful disintegration. 

Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin's. 

In socialist society, the overthrown bourgeoisie and other 
reactionary classes remain strong for quite a long time, and 
indeed in certain respects are quite powerful. They have a 
thousand and one links with the international bourgeoisie. 
They are not reconciled to their defeat and stubbornly con- 
tinue to engage in trials of strength with the proletariat. They 
conduct open and hidden struggles against the proletariat 
in every field. Constantly parading such signboards as sup- 
port for socialism, the Soviet system, the Communist Party 
and Marxism-Leninism, they work to undermine socialism 
and restore capitalism. Politically, they persist for a long 
time as a force antagonistic to the proletariat and constantly 
attempt to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat. They 
sneak into the government organs, public organizations, 
economic departments and cultural and educational institu- 
tions so as to resist or usurp the leadership of the proletariat. 
Economically, they employ every means to damage socialist 
ownership by the whole people and socialist collective owner- 
ship and to develop the forces of capitalism. In the ideological, 
cultural and educational fields, they counterpose the bour- 
geois world outlook to the proletarian world outlook and try 

421 



to corrupt the proletariat and other working people with 
bourgeois ideology. 

The collectivization of agriculture turns individual into 
collective farmers and provides favourable conditions for the 
thorough remoulding of the peasants. However, until collec- 
tive ownership advances to ownership by the whole people 
and until the remnants of private economy disappear com- 
pletely, the peasants inevitably retain some of the inherent 
characteristics of small producers. In these circumstances 
spontaneous capitalist tendencies are inevitable, the soil for 
the growth of new rich peasants still exists and polarization 
among the peasants may still occur. 

The activities of the bourgeoisie as described above, its 
corrupting effects in the political, economic, ideological and 
cultural and educational fields, the existence of spontaneous 
capitalist tendencies among urban and rural small producers, 
and the influence of the remaining bourgeois rights and the 
force of habit of the old society all constantly breed political 
degenerates in the ranks of the working class and Party and 
government organizations, new bourgeois elements and em- 
bezzlers and grafters in state enterprises owned by the whole 
people and new bourgeois intellectuals in the cultural and 
educational institutions and intellectual circles. These new 
bourgeois elements and these political degenerates attack 
socialism in collusion with the old bourgeois elements and 
elements of other exploiting classes which have been over- 
thrown but not eradicated. The political degenerates en- 
trenched in the leading organs are particularly dangerous, 
for they support and shield the bourgeois elements in organs 
at lower levels. 

As long as imperialism exists, the proletariat in the socialist 
countries will have to struggle both against the bourgeoisie 
at home and against international imperialism. Imperialism 
will seize every opportunity and try to undertake armed 
intervention against the socialist countries or to bring about 
their peaceful disintegration. It will do its utmost to destroy 

422 



the socialist countries or to make them degenerate into 
capitalist countries. The international class struggle will 
inevitably find its reflection within the socialist countries. 
Lenin said: 

The transition from capitalism to Communism represents 
an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, 
the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, 
and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. 1 

He also pointed out: 

The abolition of classes requires a long, difficult and 
stubborn class struggle, which after the overthrow of the 
power of capital, after the destruction of the bourgeois state, 
after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, 
does not disappear (as the vulgar representatives of the old 
Socialism and the old Social-Democracy imagine), but 
merely changes its forms and in many respects becomes 
more fierce. 2 

Throughout the stage of socialism the class struggle be- 
tween the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the political, eco- 
nomic, ideological and cultural and educational fields cannot 
be stopped. It is a protracted, repeated, tortuous and complex 
struggle. Like the waves of the sea it sometimes rises high 
and sometimes subsides, is now fairly calm and now very 
turbulent. It is a struggle that decides the fate of a socialist 
society. Whether a socialist society will advance to commu- 
nism or revert to capitalism depends upon the outcome of this 
protracted struggle. 

The class struggle in socialist society is inevitably reflected 
in the Communist Party. The bourgeoisie and international 

1 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kaut- 
sky", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, 
p. 61. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Greetings to the Hungarian Workers", Selected Works, 
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 210-11. 

423 



imperialism both understand that in order to make a socialist 
country degenerate into a capitalist country, it is first neces- 
sary to make the Communist Party degenerate into a revi- 
sionist party. The old and new bourgeois elements, the old 
and new rich peasants and the degenerate elements of all sorts 
constitute the social basis of revisionism, and they use every 
possible means to find agents within the Communist Party. 
The existence of bourgeois influence is the internal source of 
revisionism and surrender to imperialist pressure the external 
source. Throughout the stage of socialism, there is inevitable 
struggle between Marxism-Leninism and various kinds of 
opportunism — mainly revisionism — in the Communist Par- 
ties of socialist countries. The characteristic of this revision- 
ism is that, denying the existence of classes and class struggle, 
it sides with the bourgeoisie in attacking the proletariat and 
turns the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship 
of the bourgeoisie. 

In the light of the experience of the international working- 
class movement and in accordance with the objective law of 
class struggle, the founders of Marxism pointed out that the 
transition from capitalism to communism, from class to class- 
less society, must depend on the dictatorship of the proletariat 
and that there is no other road. 

Marx said that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the 
dictatorship of the proletariat" } He also said: 

Between capitalist and communist society lies the period 
of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the 
other. There corresponds to this also a political transition 
period in which the state can be nothing but the revolu- 
tionary dictatorship of the proletariat. 2 



'"Marx to J. Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Karl 
Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, 
p. 410. 

2 Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of 
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, 
p. 30. 

424 



The development of socialist society is a process of unin- 
terrupted revolution. In explaining revolutionary socialism 
Marx said: 

This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of 
the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as 
the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinc- 
tions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of pro- 
duction on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social 
relations that correspond to these relations of production, 
to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from 
these social relations. 1 

In his struggle against the opportunism of the Second 
International, Lenin creatively expounded and developed 
Marx's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He 
pointed out: 

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of class 
struggle but its continuation in new forms. The dictator- 
ship of the proletariat is class struggle waged by a prole- 
tariat which has been victorious and has taken political 
power in its hands against a bourgeoisie that has been de- 
feated but not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not vanish- 
ed, not ceased to offer resistance, but that has intensified 
its resistance. 2 

He also said: 

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent strug- 
gle — bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military 
and economic, educational and administrative — against 
the forces and traditions of the old society. 3 



1 Karl Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850", Selected 
Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, 
p. 203. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Foreword to the Speech 'On Deception of the People 
with Slogans of Freedom and Equality'", Alliance of the Working 
Class and the Peasantry, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 302. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", 
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 367. 

425 



In his celebrated work On the Correct Handling of Contra- 
dictions Among the People and in other works, Comrade Mao 
Tse-tung, basing himself on the fundamental principles of 
Marxism-Leninism and the historical experience of the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat, gives a comprehensive and system- 
atic analysis of classes and class struggle in socialist society, 
and creatively develops the Marxist-Leninist theory of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung examines the objective laws of so- 
cialist society from the viewpoint of materialist dialectics. He 
points out that the universal law of the unity and struggle of 
opposites operating both in the natural world and in human 
society is applicable to socialist society, too. In socialist so- 
ciety, class contradictions still remain and class struggle does 
not die out after the socialist transformation of the ownership 
of the means of production. The struggle between the two 
roads of socialism and capitalism runs through the entire stage 
of socialism. To ensure the success of socialist construction 
and to prevent the restoration of capitalism, it is necessary to 
carry the socialist revolution through to the end on the polit- 
ical, economic, ideological and cultural fronts. The complete 
victory of socialism cannot be brought about in one or two 
generations; to resolve this question thoroughly requires five 
or ten generations or even longer. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung stresses the fact that two types of 
social contradictions exist in socialist society, namely, contra- 
dictions among the people and contradictions between our- 
selves and the enemy, and that the former are very numerous. 
Only by distinguishing between the two types of contradic- 
tions, which are different in nature, and by adopting different 
measures to handle them correctly is it possible to unite the 
people, who constitute more than 90 per cent of the popula- 
tion, defeat their enemies, who constitute only a few per cent, 
and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the basic guarantee for 
the consolidation and development of socialism, for the victory 

426 



of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and of socialism in the 
struggle between the two roads. 

Only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat ul- 
timately emancipate itself. The historical task of the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat has two aspects, one internal and the 
other international. The internal task consists mainly of com- 
pletely abolishing all the exploiting classes, developing so- 
cialist economy to the maximum, enhancing the communist 
consciousness of the masses, abolishing the differences be- 
tween ownership by the whole people and collective owner- 
ship, between workers and peasants, between town and coun- 
try and between mental and manual labourers, eliminating 
any possibility of the re-emergence of classes and the restora- 
tion of capitalism and providing conditions for the realization 
of a communist society with its principle, "from each ac- 
cording to his ability, to each according to his needs". The 
international task consists mainly of preventing attacks by 
international imperialism (including armed intervention and 
disintegration by peaceful means) and of giving support to the 
world revolution until the people of all countries finally abol- 
ish imperialism, capitalism and the system of exploitation. 
Before the fulfilment of both tasks and before the advent of 
a full communist society, the dictatorship of the proletariat 
is absolutely necessary. 

Judging from the actual situation today, the tasks of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat are still far from accomplished 
in any of the socialist countries. In all socialist countries 
without exception, there are classes and class struggle, the 
struggle between the socialist and the capitalist roads, the 
question of carrying the socialist revolution through to the end 
and the question of preventing the restoration of capitalism. 
All the socialist countries still have a very long way to go be- 
fore the differences between ownership by the whole people 
and collective ownership, between workers and peasants, be- 
tween town and country and between mental and manual 
labourers are eliminated, before all classes and class differences 

427 



are abolished and a communist society with its principle, "from 
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", 
is realized. Therefore, it is necessary for all the socialist coun- 
tries to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In these circumstances, the abolition of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat by the revisionist Khrushchov clique is nothing 
but the betrayal of socialism and communism. 



ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE 
EXIST IN THE SOVIET UNION 

In announcing the abolition of the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat in the Soviet Union, the revisionist Khrushchov clique 
base themselves mainly on the argument that antagonistic 
classes have been eliminated and that class struggle no longer 
exists. 

But what is the actual situation in the Soviet Union? Are 
there really no antagonistic classes and no class struggle there? 

Following the victory of the Great October Socialist Rev- 
olution, the dictatorship of the proletariat was established 
in the Soviet Union, capitalist private ownership was destroy- 
ed and socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist 
collective ownership were established through the national- 
ization of industry and the collectivization of agriculture, and 
great achievements in socialist construction were scored during 
several decades. All this constituted an indelible victory of 
tremendous historic significance won by the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people under the leader- 
ship of Lenin and Stalin. 

However, the old bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes 
which had been overthrown in the Soviet Union were not 
eradicated and survived after industry was nationalized and 
agriculture collectivized. The political and ideological in- 
fluence of the bourgeoisie remained. Spontaneous capitalist 
tendencies continued to exist both in the city and in the coun- 

428 



tryside. New bourgeois elements and kulaks were still in- 
cessantly generated. Throughout the long intervening period, 
the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie 
and the struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads have 
continued in the political, economic and ideological spheres. 

As the Soviet Union was the first, and at the time the only, 
country to build socialism and had no foreign experience to go 
by, and as Stalin departed from Marxist-Leninist dialectics 
in his understanding of the laws of class struggle in socialist 
society, he prematurely declared after agriculture was basically 
collectivized that there were "no longer antagonistic classes" 1 
in the Soviet Union and that it was "free of class conflicts", 2 
one-sidedly stressed the internal homogeneity of socialist 
society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon 
the working class and the masses in the struggle against the 
forces of capitalism and regarded the possibility of the restora- 
tion of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by 
international imperialism. This was wrong both in theory and 
in practice. Nevertheless, Stalin remained a great Marxist- 
Leninist. As long as he led the Soviet Party and state, he 
held fast to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist 
course, pursued a Marxist-Leninist line and ensured the Soviet 
Union's victorious advance along the road of socialism. 

Ever since Khrushchov seized the leadership of the Soviet 
Party and state, he has pushed through a whole series of 
revisionist policies which have greatly hastened the growth 
of the forces of capitalism and again sharpened the class 
struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and the 
struggle between the roads of socialism and capitalism in the 
Soviet Union. 

Scanning the reports in Soviet newspapers over the last few 
years, one finds numerous examples demonstrating not only 

•J. V. Stalin, "On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.", Problems 
of Leninism, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 690. 

2 J. V. Stalin, "Report to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B) 
on the Work of the Central Committee", Problems of Leninism, Eng. 
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 777. 

429 



the presence of many elements of the old exploiting classes 
in Soviet society, but also the generation of new bourgeois 
elements on a large scale and the acceleration of class 
polarization. 

Let us first look at the activities of the various bourgeois 
elements in the Soviet enterprises owned by the whole people. 

Leading functionaries of some state-owned factories and 
their gangs abuse their positions and amass large fortunes by 
using the equipment and materials of the factories to set up 
"underground workshops" for private production, selling the 
products illicitly and dividing the spoils. Here are some 
examples. 

In a Leningrad plant producing military items, the leading 
functionaries placed their own men in "all key posts" and 
"turned the state enterprise into a private one". They illi- 
citly engaged in the production of non-military goods and from 
the sale of fountain pens alone embezzled 1,200,000 old roubles 
in three years. Among these people was a man who "was a 
Nepman ... in the 1920's" and had been a "lifelong thief'. 1 

In a silk-weaving mill in Uzbekistan, the manager ganged 
up with the chief engineer, the chief accountant, the chief of 
the supply and marketing section, heads of workshops and 
others, and they all became "new-born entrepreneurs". They 
purchased more than ten tons of artificial and pure silk 
through various illegal channels in order to manufacture goods 
which "did not pass through the accounts". They employed 
workers without going through the proper procedures and 
enforced "a twelve-hour working day". 2 

The manager of a furniture factory in Kharkov set up an 
"illegal knitwear workshop" and carried on secret operations 
inside the factory. This man "had several wives, several 
cars, several houses, 176 neck-ties, about a hundred shirts and 



1 Krasnava Zvezda, May 19, 1962. 

2 Pravda Vostoka, October 8, 1963. 



430 



dozens of suits". He was also a big gambler at the horse- 



races. 1 



Such people do not operate all by themselves. They in- 
variably work hand in glove with functionaries in the state 
departments in charge of supplies and in the commercial and 
other departments. They have their own men in the police 
and judicial departments who protect them and act as their 
agents. Even high-ranking officials in the state organs support 
and shield them. Here are a few examples. 

The chief of the workshops affiliated to a Moscow psycho- 
neurological dispensary and his gang set up an "underground 
enterprise", and by bribery "obtained fifty-eight knitting ma- 
chines" and a large amount of raw material. They entered 
into business relations with "fifty-two factories, handicraft 
co-operatives and collective farms" and made three million 
roubles in a few years. They bribed functionaries of the De- 
partment for Combating Theft of Socialist Property and Spec- 
ulation, controllers, inspectors, instructors and others. 2 

The manager of a machinery plant in the Russian Federa- 
tion, together with the deputy manager of a second machinery 
plant and other functionaries, or forty-three persons in all, 
stole more than nine hundred looms and sold them to factories 
in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus and other places, 
whose leading functionaries used them for illicit production. 3 

In the Kirghiz SSR, a gang of over forty embezzlers and 
grafters, having gained control of two factories, organized 
underground production and plundered more than thirty mil- 
lion roubles' worth of state property. This gang included the 
Chairman of the Planning Commission of the Republic, a 
Vice-Minister of Commerce, seven bureau chiefs and division 
chiefs of the Republic's Council of Ministers, National Eco- 

1 Pravda Ukrainy, May 18, 1962. 

2 Izvestia, October 20, 1963, and Izvestia Sunday Supplement, No. 12, 
1964. 

3 Komsomolskaya Pravda, August 9, 1963. 

431 



nomic Council and State Control Commission, as well as "a big 
kulak who had fled from exile". 1 

These examples show that the factories which have fallen 
into the clutches of such degenerates are socialist enterprises 
only in name, that in fact they have become capitalist enter- 
prises by which these persons enrich themselves. The rela- 
tionship of such persons to the workers has turned into one 
between exploiters and exploited, between oppressors and 
oppressed. Are not such degenerates who possess and make 
use of means of production to exploit the labour of others 
out-and-out bourgeois elements? Are not their accomplices 
in government organizations, who work hand in glove with 
them, participate in many types of exploitation, engage in 
embezzlement, accept bribes, and share the spoils, also out- 
and-out bourgeois elements? 

Obviously all these people belong to a class that is antago- 
nistic to the proletariat — they belong to the bourgeoisie. Their 
activities against socialism are definitely class struggle with 
the bourgeoisie attacking the proletariat. 

Now let us look at the activities of various kulak elements 
on the collective farms. 

Some leading collective-farm functionaries and their gangs 
steal and speculate at will, freely squander public money and 
fleece the collective farmers. Here are some examples. 

The chairman of a collective farm in Uzbekistan "held the 
whole village in terror". All the important posts on this farm 
"were occupied by his in-laws and other relatives and friends". 
He squandered "over 132,000 roubles of the collective farm for 
his personal 'needs'". He had a car, two motor-cycles and 
three wives, each with "a house of her own". 2 

The chairman of a collective farm in the Kursk Region re- 
garded the farm as his "hereditary estate". He conspired 
with its accountant, cashier, chief warehouse-keeper, agron- 
omist, general-store manager and others. Shielding each other, 

1 Sovietskaya Kirghizia, January 9, 1962. 

2 Selskaya Zhizn, June 26, 1962. 

432 



they "fleeced the collective farmers" and pocketed more than 
100,000 roubles in a few years. 1 

The chairman of a collective farm in the Ukraine made over 
50,000 roubles at its expense by forging purchase certificates 
and cash-account orders in collusion with its woman account- 
ant, who had been praised for keeping "model accounts" and 
whose deeds had been displayed at the Moscow Exhibition 
of Achievements of the National Economy. 2 

The chairman of a collective farm in the Alma-Ata Region 
specialized in commercial speculation. He bought "fruit juice 
in the Ukraine or Uzbekistan, and sugar and alcohol from 
Djambul", processed them and then sold the wine at very high 
prices in many localities. In this farm a winery was created 
with a capacity of over a million litres a year, its speculative 
commercial network spread throughout the Kazakhstan SSR, 
and commercial speculation became one of the farm's main 
sources of income. 3 

The chairman of a collective farm in Byelorussia considered 
himself "a feudal princeling on the farm" and acted "per- 
sonally" in all matters. He lived not on the farm but in the 
city or in his own splendid villa, and was always busy with 
"various commercial machinations" and "illegal deals". He 
bought cattle from the outside, represented them as the prod- 
ucts of his collective farm and falsified output figures. And 
yet "not a few commendatory newspaper reports" had been 
published about him and he had been called a "model leader". 4 

These examples show that collective farms under the control 
of such functionaries virtually become their private property. 
Such men turn socialist collective economic enterprises into 
economic enterprises of new kulaks. There are often people 
in their superior organizations who protect them. Their rela- 
tionship to the collective farmers has likewise become that of 



1 Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, No. 35, 1963. 

2 Selskaya Zhizn, August 14, 1963. 

3 Pravda, January 14, 1962. 

4 Pravda, February 6, 1961. 

433 



oppressors to oppressed, of exploiters to exploited. Are not 
such neo-exploiters who ride on the backs of the collective 
farmers one hundred-per-cent neo-kulaks? 

Obviously, they all belong to a class that is antagonistic to 
the proletariat and the labouring farmers, belong to the kulak 
or rural bourgeois class. Their anti-socialist activities are 
precisely class struggle with the bourgeoisie attacking the 
proletariat and the labouring farmers. 

Apart from the bourgeois elements in state enterprises and 
collective farms, there are many others in both town and 
country in the Soviet Union. 

Some of them set up private enterprises for private produc- 
tion and sale; others organize contractor teams and openly 
undertake construction jobs for state or co-operative enter- 
prises; still others open private hotels. A "Soviet woman cap- 
italist" in Leningrad hired workers to make nylon blouses 
for sale, and her "daily income amounted to 700 new roubles". 1 
The owner of a workshop in the Kursk Region made felt boots 
for sale at speculative prices. He had in his possession 540 
pairs of felt boots, eight kilogrammes of gold coins, 3,000 me- 
tres of high-grade textiles, 20 carpets, 1,200 kilogrammes of 
wool and many other valuables. 2 A private entrepreneur in 
the Gomel Region "hired workers and artisans" and in the 
course of two years secured contracts for the construction and 
overhauling of furnaces in twelve factories at a high price. 3 
In the Orenburg Region there are "hundreds of private hotels 
and trans-shipment points", and "the money of the collective 
farms and the state is continuously streaming into the pockets 
of the hostelry owners". 4 

Some engage in commercial speculation, making tremendous 
profits through buying cheap and selling dear or bringing 
goods from far away. In Moscow there are a great many 



1 Izvestia, April 9, 1963. 

2 Sovietskaya Rossiya, October 9, 1960. 

3 Izvestia, October 18, 1960. 
4 Selskaya Zhizn, July 17, 1963. 

434 



speculators engaged in the re-sale of agricultural produce. 
They "bring to Moscow tons of citrus fruit, apples and vege- 
tables and re-sell them at speculative prices". "These profit- 
grabbers are provided with every facility, with market inns, 
store-rooms and other services at their disposal". 1 In the 
Krasnodar Territory, a speculator set up her own agency and 
"employed twelve salesmen and two stevedores". She trans- 
ported "thousands of hogs, hundreds of quintals of grain and 
hundreds of tons of fruit" from the rural areas to the Don 
Basin and moved "great quantities of stolen slag bricks, whole 
wagons of glass" and other building materials from the city to 
the villages. She reaped huge profits out of such re-sale. 2 

Others specialize as brokers and middlemen. They have 
wide contacts and through them one can get any thing in 
return for a bribe. There was a broker in Leningrad who 
"though he is not the Minister of Trade, controls all the 
stocks", and "though he holds no post on the railway, disposes 
of wagons". He could obtain "things the stocks of which are 
strictly controlled, from outside the stocks". "All the store- 
houses in Leningrad are at his service." For delivering goods, 
he received huge "bonuses" — 700,000 roubles from one tim- 
ber combine in 1960 alone. In Leningrad, there is "a whole 
group" of such brokers. 3 

These private entrepreneurs and speculators are engaged 
in the most naked capitalist exploitation. Isn't it clear that 
they belong to the bourgeoisie, the class antagonistic to the 
proletariat? 

Actually the Soviet press itself calls these people "Soviet 
capitalists", "new-born entrepreneurs", "private entrepre- 
neurs", "newly-emerged kulaks", "speculators", "exploit- 
ers", etc. Aren't the revisionist Khrushchov clique contradict- 
ing themselves when they assert that antagonistic classes do 
not exist in the Soviet Union? 



1 Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, No. 27, 1963. 

2 Literaturnaya Gazeta, July 27 and August 17, 1963. 

3 Sovietskaya Rossiya, January 27, 1961. 

435 



The facts cited above are only a part of those published in 
the Soviet press. They are enough to shock people, but there 
are many more which have not been published, many bigger 
and more serious cases which are covered up and shielded. 
We have quoted the above data in order to answer the ques- 
tion whether there are antagonistic classes and class struggle 
in the Soviet Union. These data are readily available and 
even the revisionist Khrushchov clique are unable to deny 
them. 

These data suffice to show that the unbridled activities of 
the bourgeoisie against the proletariat are widespread in the 
Soviet Union, in the city as well as the countryside, in industry 
as well as agriculture, in the sphere of production as well as 
the sphere of circulation, all the way from the economic de- 
partments to Party and government organizations, and from 
the grass-roots to the higher leading bodies. These anti-social- 
ist activities are nothing if not the sharp class struggle of the 
bourgeoisie against the proletariat. 

It is not strange that attacks on socialism should be made 
in a socialist country by old and new bourgeois elements. 
There is nothing terrifying about this so long as the leadership 
of the Party and state remains a Marxist-Leninist one. But 
in the Soviet Union today, the gravity of the situation lies 
in the fact that the revisionist Khrushchov clique have usurped 
the leadership of the Soviet Party and state and that a priv- 
ileged bourgeois stratum has emerged in Soviet society. 

We shall deal with this problem in the following section. 



THE SOVIET PRIVILEGED STRATUM AND THE 
REVISIONIST KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE 

The privileged stratum in contemporary Soviet society is 
composed of degenerate elements from among the leading 
cadres of Party and government organizations, enterprises 
and farms as well as bourgeois intellectuals; it stands in op- 

436 



position to the workers, the peasants and the overwhelming 
majority of the intellectuals and cadres of the Soviet Union. 

Lenin pointed out soon after the October Revolution that 
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies and force of habit 
were encircling and influencing the proletariat from all direc- 
tions and were corrupting certain of its sections. This circum- 
stance led to the emergence from among the Soviet officials 
and functionaries both of bureaucrats alienated from the 
masses and of new bourgeois elements. Lenin also pointed out 
that although the high salaries paid to the bourgeois technical 
specialists staying on to work for the Soviet regime were 
necessary, they were having a corrupting influence on it. 

Therefore, Lenin laid great stress on waging persistent 
struggles against the influence of bourgeois and petty-bour- 
geois ideologies, on arousing the broad masses to take part 
in government work, on ceaselessly exposing and purging 
bureaucrats and new bourgeois elements in the Soviet organs, 
and on creating conditions that would bar the existence and 
reproduction of the bourgeoisie. Lenin pointed out sharply 
that "without a systematic and determined struggle to im- 
prove the apparatus, we shall perish before the basis of so- 
cialism is created". 1 

At the same time, he laid great stress on adherence to the 
principle of the Paris Commune in wage policy, that is, all 
public servants were to be paid wages corresponding to those 
of the workers and only bourgeois specialists were to be paid 
high salaries. From the October Revolution to the period of 
Soviet economic rehabilitation, Lenin's directives were in the 
main observed; the leading personnel of the Party and gov- 
ernment organizations and enterprises and Party members 
among the specialists received salaries roughly equivalent to 
the wages of workers. 

At that time, the Communist Party and the government of 
the Soviet Union adopted a number of measures in the 

1 V. I. Lenin, "Plan of the Pamphlet 'On the Food Tax' ", Collected 
Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, p. 301. 

437 



sphere of politics and ideology and in the system of distri- 
bution to prevent leading cadres in any department from abus- 
ing their powers or degenerating morally or politically. 

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union headed by Stalin 
adhered to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the road 
of socialism and waged a staunch struggle against the forces 
of capitalism. Stalin's struggles against the Trotskyites, Zino- 
vievites and Bukharinites were in essence a reflection within 
the Party of the class struggle between the proletariat and 
the bourgeoisie and of the struggle between the two roads 
of socialism and capitalism. Victory in these struggles smashed 
the vain plot of the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism in the 
Soviet Union. 

It cannot be denied that before Stalin's death high salaries 
were already being paid to certain groups and that some 
cadres had already degenerated and become bourgeois ele- 
ments. The Central Committee of the CPSU pointed out in 
its report to the 19th Party Congress in October 1952 that 
degeneration and corruption had appeared in certain Party 
organizations. The leaders of these organizations had turned 
them into small communities composed exclusively of their 
own people, "setting their group interests higher than the 
interests of the Party and the state". Some executives of 
industrial enterprises "forget that the enterprises entrusted 
to their charge are state enterprises, and try to turn them 
into their own private domain". "Instead of safeguarding the 
common husbandry of the collective farms", some Party and 
Soviet functionaries and some cadres in agricultural depart- 
ments "engage in filching collective-farm property". In the 
cultural, artistic and scientific fields too, works attacking and 
smearing the socialist system had appeared and a monopolis- 
tic "Arakcheyev regime" had emerged among the scientists. 

Since Khrushchov usurped the leadership of the Soviet 
Party and state, there has been a fundamental change in the 
state of the class struggle in the Soviet Union. 

438 



Khrushchov has carried out a series of revisionist policies 
serving the interests of the bourgeoisie and rapidly swelling 
the forces of capitalism in the Soviet Union. 

On the pretext of "combating the personality cult", Khru- 
shchov has defamed the dictatorship of the proletariat and 
the socialist system and thus in fact paved the way for the 
restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. In completely 
negating Stalin, he has in fact negated Marxism-Leninism 
which was upheld by Stalin and opened the floodgates for 
the revisionist deluge. 

Khrushchov has substituted "material incentive" for the 
socialist principle, "from each according to his ability, to each 
according to his work". He has widened, and not narrowed, 
the gap between the incomes of a small minority and those of 
the workers, peasants and ordinary intellectuals. He has sup- 
ported the degenerates in leading positions, encouraging them 
to become even more unscrupulous in abusing their powers 
and to appropriate the fruits of labour of the Soviet people. 
Thus he has accelerated the polarization of classes in Soviet 
society. 

Khrushchov sabotages the socialist planned economy, ap- 
plies the capitalist principle of profit, develops capitalist free 
competition and undermines socialist ownership by the whole 
people. 

Khrushchov attacks the system of socialist agricultural plan- 
ning, describing it as "bureaucratic" and "unnecessary". Eager 
to learn from the big proprietors of American farms, he is 
encouraging capitalist management, fostering a kulak econo- 
my and undermining the socialist collective economy. 

Khrushchov is peddling bourgeois ideology, bourgeois lib- 
erty, equality, fraternity and humanity, inculcating bour- 
geois idealism and metaphysics and the reactionary ideas of 
bourgeois individualism, humanism and pacifism among the 
Soviet people, and debasing socialist morality. The rotten 
bourgeois culture of the West is now fashionable in the Soviet 
Union, and socialist culture is ostracized and attacked. 

439 



Under the signboard of "peaceful coexistence", Khrushchov 
has been colluding with U.S. imperialism, wrecking the so- 
cialist camp and the international communist movement, op- 
posing the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples 
and nations, practising great-power chauvinism and national 
egoism and betraying proletarian internationalism. All this 
is being done for the protection of the vested interests of a 
handful of people, which he places above the fundamental 
interests of the peoples of the Soviet Union, the socialist camp 
and the whole world. 

The line Khrushchov pursues is a revisionist line through 
and through. Guided by this line, not only have the old bour- 
geois elements run wild but new bourgeois elements have 
appeared in large numbers among the leading cadres of the 
Soviet Party and government, the chiefs of state enterprises 
and collective farms, and the higher intellectuals in the fields 
of culture, art, science and technology. 

In the Soviet Union at present, not only have the new 
bourgeois elements increased in number as never before, but 
their social status has fundamentally changed. Before Khru- 
shchov came to power, they did not occupy the ruling posi- 
tion in Soviet society. Their activities were restricted in 
many ways and they were subject to attack. But since Khru- 
shchov took over, usurping the leadership of the Party and 
the state step by step, the new bourgeois elements have 
gradually risen to the ruling position in the Party and govern- 
ment and in the economic, cultural and other departments, 
and formed a privileged stratum in Soviet society. 

This privileged stratum is the principal component of the 
bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union today and the main social 
basis of the revisionist Khrushchov clique. The revisionist 
Khrushchov clique are the political representatives of the 
Soviet bourgeoisie, and particularly of its privileged stratum. 

The revisionist Khrushchov clique have carried out one 
purge after another and replaced one group of cadres after 
another throughout the country, from the central to the local 

440 



bodies, from leading Party and government organizations to 
economic and cultural and educational departments, dismiss- 
ing those they do not trust and planting their proteges in 
leading posts. 

Take the Central Committee of the CPSU as an example. 
The statistics show that nearly seventy per cent of the members 
of the Central Committee of the CPSU who were elected 
at its 19th Congress in 1952 were purged in the course of the 
20th and 22nd Congresses held respectively in 1956 and 1961. 
And nearly fifty per cent of the members of the Central Com- 
mittee who were elected at the 20th Congress were purged 
at the time of the 22nd Congress. 

Or take the local organizations. On the eve of the 22nd 
Congress, on the pretext of "renewing the cadres", the re- 
visionist Khrushchov clique, according to incomplete statis- 
tics, removed from office forty- five per cent of the members of the 
Party Central Committees of the Union Republics and of the 
Party Committees of the Territories and Regions, and forty per 
cent of the members of the Municipal and District Party Com- 
mittees. In 1963, on the pretext of dividing the Party into 
"industrial" and "agricultural" Party committees, they fur- 
ther replaced more than half the members of the Central 
Committees of the Union Republics and of the Regional Party 
Committees. 

Through this series of changes the Soviet privileged stra- 
tum has gained control of the Party, the government and 
other important organizations. 

The members of this privileged stratum have converted 
the function of serving the masses into the privilege of dom- 
inating them. They are abusing their powers over the means 
of production and of livelihood for the private benefit of 
their small clique. 

The members of this privileged stratum appropriate the 
fruits of the Soviet people's labour and pocket in comes that 
are dozens or even a hundred times those of the average 
Soviet worker and peasant. They not only secure high in- 

441 



comes in the form of high salaries, high awards, high royal- 
ties and a great variety of personal subsidies, but also use 
their privileged position to appropriate public property by 
graft and bribery. Completely divorced from the working 
people of the Soviet Union, they live the parasitical and deca- 
dent life of the bourgeoisie. 

The members of this privileged stratum have become ut- 
terly degenerate ideologically, have completely departed from 
the revolutionary traditions of the Bolshevik Party and dis- 
carded the lofty ideals of the Soviet working class. They are 
opposed to Marxism-Leninism and socialism. They betray 
the revolution and forbid others to make revolution. Their 
sole concern is to consolidate their economic position and 
political rule. All their activities revolve around the private 
interests of their own privileged stratum. 

Having usurped the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, 
the Khrushchov clique are turning the Marxist-Leninist Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union with its glorious revolu- 
tionary history into a revisionist party; they are turning the 
Soviet state under the dictatorship of the proletariat into a 
state under the dictatorship of the revisionist Khrushchov 
clique; and, step by step, they are turning socialist ownership 
by the whole people and socialist collective ownership into 
ownership by the privileged stratum. 

People have seen how in Yugoslavia, although the Tito 
clique still displays the banner of "socialism", a bureaucrat 
bourgeoisie opposed to the Yugoslav people has gradually 
come into being since the Tito clique took the road of revi- 
sionism, transforming the Yugoslav state from a dictatorship 
of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bureaucrat bour- 
geoisie and its socialist public economy into state capitalism. 
Now people see the Khrushchov clique taking the road already 
travelled by the Tito clique. Khrushchov looks to Belgrade 
as his Mecca, saying again and again that he will learn from 
the Tito clique's experience and declaring that he and the 

442 



Tito clique "belong to one and the same idea and are guided 
by the same theory". 1 This is not at all surprising. 

As a result of Khrushchov's revisionism, the first socialist 
country in the world built by the great Soviet people with 
their blood and sweat is now facing an unprecedented danger 
of capitalist restoration. 

The Khrushchov clique are spreading the tale that "there 
are no longer antagonistic classes and class struggle in the 
Soviet Union" in order to cover up the facts about their 
own ruthless class struggle against the Soviet people. 

The Soviet privileged stratum represented by the revision- 
ist Khrushchov clique constitutes only a few per cent of the 
Soviet population. Among the Soviet cadres its numbers are 
also small. It stands diametrically opposed to the Soviet peo- 
ple, who constitute more than 90 per cent of the total popula- 
tion, and to the great majority of the Soviet cadres and Com- 
munists. The contradiction between the Soviet people and 
this privileged stratum is now the principal contradiction in- 
side the Soviet Union, and it is an irreconcilable and antag- 
onistic class contradiction. 

The glorious Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which 
was built by Lenin, and the great Soviet people displayed 
epoch-making revolutionary initiative in the October Socialist 
Revolution, they showed their heroism and stamina in defeat- 
ing the White Guards and the armed intervention by more 
than a dozen imperialist countries, they scored unprecedent- 
edly brilliant achievements in the struggle for industrializa- 
tion and agricultural collectivization, and they won a tremen- 
dous victory in the Patriotic War against the German fascists 
and saved all mankind. Even under the rule of the Khru- 
shchov clique, the mass of the members of the CPSU and the 
Soviet people are carrying on the glorious revolutionary tradi- 
tions nurtured by Lenin and Stalin, and they still uphold 
socialism and aspire to communism. 

'N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni 
in Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963. 

443 



The broad masses of the Soviet workers, collective farmers 
and intellectuals are seething with discontent against the op- 
pression and exploitation practised by the privileged stratum. 
They have come to see ever more clearly the revisionist fea- 
tures of the Khrushchov clique which is betraying socialism 
and restoring capitalism. Among the ranks of the Soviet 
cadres, there are many who still persist in the revolutionary 
stand of the proletariat, adhere to the road of socialism and 
firmly oppose Khrushchov 's revisionism. The broad masses 
of the Soviet people, of Communists and cadres are using 
various means to resist and oppose the revisionist line of the 
Khrushchov clique, so that the revisionist Khrushchov clique 
cannot so easily bring about the restoration of capitalism. 
The great Soviet people are fighting to defend the glorious 
traditions of the Great October Revolution, to preserve the 
great gains of socialism and to smash the plot for the restora- 
tion of capitalism. 

REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OF 
THE WHOLE PEOPLE 

At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly 
raised the banner of opposition to the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat, announcing the replacement of the state of the dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat by the "state of the whole people". 
It is written in the Programme of the CPSU that the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat "has ceased to be indispensable in the 
U.S.S.R." and that "the state, which arose as a state of the dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat, has, in the new, contemporary 
stage, become a state of the entire people". 

Anyone with a little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism 
knows that the concept of the state is a class concept. Lenin 
pointed out that "the distinguishing feature of the state is 
the existence of a separate class of people in whose hands 

444 



power is concentrated". 1 The state is a weapon of class strug- 
gle, a machine by means of which one class represses another. 
Every state is the dictatorship of a definite class. So long 
as the state exists, it cannot possibly stand above class or be- 
long to the whole people. 

The proletariat and its political party have never concealed 
their views; they say explicitly that the very aim of the pro- 
letarian socialist revolution is to overthrow bourgeois rule and 
establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the victory 
of the socialist revolution, the proletariat and its party must 
strive unremittingly to fulfil the historical tasks of the dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat and eliminate classes and class 
differences, so that the state will wither away. It is only the 
bourgeoisie and its parties which in their attempt to hood- 
wink the masses try by every means to cover up the class 
nature of state power and describe the state machinery un- 
der their control as being "of the whole people" and "above 
class". 

The fact that Khrushchov has announced the abolition of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and 
advanced the thesis of the "state of the whole people" dem- 
onstrates that he has replaced the Marxist-Leninist teach- 
ings on the state by bourgeois falsehoods. 

When Marxist-Leninists criticized their fallacies, the re- 
visionist Khrushchov clique hastily defended themselves and 
tried hard to invent a so-called theoretical basis for the "state 
of the whole people". They now assert that the historical 
period of the dictatorship of the proletariat mentioned by 
Marx and Lenin refers only to the transition from capitalism 
to the first stage of communism and not to its higher stage. 
They further assert that "the dictatorship of the proletariat 



1 V. I. Lenin, "The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism 
of It in Mr. Struve's Book", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 
1960, Vol. I, p. 419. 

445 



will cease to be necessary before the state withers away" 1 
and that after the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat, 
there is yet another stage, the "state of the whole people". 

These are out-and-out sophistries. 

In his "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx advanced 
the well-known axiom that the dictatorship of the proletariat 
is the state of the period of transition from capitalism to com- 
munism. Lenin gave a clear explanation of this Marxist 
axiom. 

He said: 

In his "Critique of the Gotha Programme" Marx wrote: 
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period 
of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the 
other. There corresponds to this also a political transition 
period in which the state can be nothing but the revolu- 
tionary dictatorship of the proletariat." 

Up to now this axiom has never been disputed by Social- 
ists, and yet it implies the recognition of the existence of 
the state right up to the time when victorious socialism 
has grown into complete communism. 2 

Lenin further said: 

The essence of Marx's teaching on the state has been 
mastered only by those who understand that the dictator- 
ship of a single class is necessary not only for every class 
society in general, not only for the proletariat which has 
overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical 
period which separates capitalism from "classless society", 
from Communism. 3 



'"Programme for the Building of Communism", editorial board 
article in Pravda, August 18, 1961. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up", 
Collected Works, International Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, 
pp. 269-70. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH, 
Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 234. 

446 



It is perfectly clear that according to Marx and Lenin, the 
historical period throughout which the state of the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat exists, is not merely the period of 
transition from capitalism to the first stage of communism, 
as alleged by the revisionist Khrushchov clique, but the entire 
period of transition from capitalism to "complete commu- 
nism", to the time when all class differences will have been 
eliminated and "classless society" realized, that is to say, to 
the higher stage of communism. 

It is equally clear that the state in the transition period 
referred to by Marx and Lenin is the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat and not anything else. The dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat is the form of the state in the entire period of transi- 
tion from capitalism to the higher stage of communism, and 
also the last form of the state in human history. The wither- 
ing away of the dictatorship of the proletariat will mean the 
withering away of the state. Lenin said: 

Marx deduced from the whole history of Socialism and of 
the political struggle that the state was bound to disappear, 
and that the transitional form of its disappearance (the 
transition from state to nonstate) would be the "proletariat 
organized as the ruling class". 1 

Historically the dictatorship of the proletariat may take 
different forms from one country to another and from one 
period to another, but in essence it will remain the same. 
Lenin said: 

The transition from capitalism to Communism certainly 
cannot but yield a tremendous abundance and variety of 
political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: 
the dictatorship of the proletariat. 2 

It can thus be seen that it is absolutely not the view of Marx 
and Lenin but an invention of the revisionist Khrushchov 



1 Ibid., pp. 256-57. 
2 Ibid., p. 234. 

447 



that the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat will pre- 
cede the withering away of the state and will be followed by 
yet another stage, "the state of the whole people". 

In arguing for their anti-Marxist-Leninist views, the 
revisionist Khrushchov clique have taken great pains to find 
a sentence from Marx and distorted it by quoting it out of 
context. They have arbitrarily described the future nature 
of the state [Staatswesen in German] of communist society 
referred to by Marx in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme" 
as the "'state of communist society' [rocyjiapcTBeHHocTL kom- 
MyHHCTHnecKoro oSruecTBa in Russian], which is no longer 
a dictatorship of the proletariat". 1 They gleefully announced 
that the Chinese would not dare to quote this from Marx. 
Apparently the revisionist Khrushchov clique think it is very 
helpful to them. 

As it happens, Lenin seems to have foreseen that revision- 
ists would make use of this phrase to distort Marxism. In 
his Marxism on the State, Lenin gave an excellent explana- 
tion of it. He said, ". . . the dictatorship of the proletariat 
is a 'political transition period'. . . . But Marx goes on to speak 
of 'the future nature of the state [rocy^apcTBeHHocTt in Rus- 
sian, Staatswesen in German] of communist society'!! Thus, 
there will be a state even in 'communist society'!! Is there not 
a contradiction in this?" Lenin answered, "No." He then tab- 
ulated the three stages in the process of development from 
the bourgeois state to the withering away of the state: 

The first stage — in capitalist society, the state is needed 
by the bourgeoisie — the bourgeois state. 

The second stage — in the period of transition from capi- 
talism to communism, the state is needed by the proletariat 
— the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

The third stage — in communist society, the state is not 
necessary, it withers away. 

1 M. A. Suslov, Report at the Plenary Meeting of the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPSU, February 1964, New Times, Eng. ed., No. 15, 1964, 
p. 62. 

448 



He concluded: "Complete consistency and clarity!!" 
In Lenin's tabulation, only the bourgeois state, the state of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and the withering away of 
the state are to be found. By precisely this tabulation Lenin 
made it clear that when communism is reached the state 
withers away and becomes non-existent. 

Ironically enough, the revisionist Khrushchov clique also 
quoted this very passage from Lenin's Marxism on the State 
in the course of defending their error. And then they pro- 
ceeded to make the following idiotic statement: 

In our country the first two periods referred to by Lenin 
in the opinion quoted already belong to history. In the 
Soviet Union a state of the whole people — a communist 
state system, the state of the first phase of communism, has 
arisen and is developing. 1 

If the first two periods referred to by Lenin have already 
become a thing of the past in the Soviet Union, then the state 
should be withering away, and where could a "state of the 
whole people" come from? If the state is not yet withering 
away, then it ought to be the dictatorship of the proletariat 
and under absolutely no circumstances a "state of the whole 
people". 

In arguing for their "state of the whole people", the revi- 
sionist Khrushchov clique exert themselves to vilify the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat as undemocratic. They assert that 
only by replacing the state of the dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat by the "state of the whole people" can democracy be 
further developed and turned into "genuine democracy for 
the whole people". Khrushchov has pretentiously said that 
the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat exemplifies 
"a line of energetically developing democracy" and that "pro- 



1 "From the Party of the Working Class to the Party of the Whole 
Soviet People", editorial board article in Partyinaya Zhizn, No. 8, 1964. 

449 



letarian democracy is becoming socialist democracy of the 
whole people". 1 

These utterances can only show that their authors either 
are completely ignorant of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on 
the state or are maliciously distorting them. 

Anyone with a little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism knows 
that the concept of democracy as a form of the state, like that 
of dictatorship, is a class one. There can only be class de- 
mocracy, there cannot be "democracy for the whole people". 

Lenin said: 

Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and sup- 
pression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the 
exploiters and oppressors of the people -- this is the change 
democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism 
to Communism. 2 

Dictatorship over the exploiting classes and democracy among 
the working people — these are the two aspects of the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat. It is only under the dictatorship 
of the proletariat that democracy for the masses of the working 
people can be developed and expanded to an unprecedented 
extent. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat there can 
be no genuine democracy for the working people. 

Where there is bourgeois democracy there is no proletarian 
democracy, and where there is proletarian democracy there 
is no bourgeois democracy. The one excludes the other. This 
is inevitable and admits of no compromise. The more thor- 
oughly bourgeois democracy is eliminated, the more will 
proletarian democracy flourish. In the eyes of the bourgeoi- 
sie, any country where this occurs is lacking in democracy. 
But actually this is the promotion of proletarian democracy 

'N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, 
October 1961, and Report on the Programme of the CPSU, delivered 
at the Congress. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 291. 

450 



and the elimination of bourgeois democracy. As proletarian 
democracy develops, bourgeois democracy is eliminated. 

This fundamental Marxist-Leninist thesis is opposed by the 
revisionist Khrushchov clique. In fact, they hold that so long 
as enemies are subjected to dictatorship there is no democracy 
and that the only way to develop democracy is to abolish the 
dictatorship over enemies, stop suppressing them and institute 
"democracy for the whole people". 

Their view is cast from the same mould as the renegade 
Kautsky's concept of "pure democracy". 

In criticizing Kautsky Lenin said: 

. . . "pure democracy" is not only an ignorant phrase, 
revealing a lack of understanding both of the class struggle 
and of the nature of the state, but also a thrice-empty 
phrase, since in communist society democracy will wither 
away in the process of changing and becoming a habit, but 
will never be "pure" democracy. 1 

He also pointed out: 

The dialectics (course) of the development is as follows: 
from absolutism to bourgeois democracy; from bourgeois to 
proletarian democracy; from proletarian democracy to 
none. 2 

That is to say, in the higher stage of communism proletarian 
democracy will wither away along with the elimination of 
classes and the withering away of the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat. 

To speak plainly, as with the "state of the whole people", 
the "democracy for the whole people" proclaimed by Khrush- 
chov is a hoax. In thus retrieving the tattered garments of 
the bourgeoisie and the old-line revisionists, patching them 

1 V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade 
Kautsky", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 
2, p. 48. 

2 V. I. Lenin, Marxism on the State, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, p. 42. 

451 



up and adding a label of his own, Khrushchov's sole purpose 
is to deceive the Soviet people and the revolutionary people 
of the world and cover up his betrayal of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat and his opposition to socialism. 

What is the essence of Khrushchov's "state of the whole 
people"? 

Khrushchov has abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat 
in the Soviet Union and established a dictatorship of the revi- 
sionist clique headed by himself, that is, a dictatorship of a 
privileged stratum of the Soviet bourgeoisie. Actually his 
"state of the whole people" is not a state of the dictatorship 
of the proletariat but a state in which his small revisionist 
clique wield their dictatorship over the masses of the workers, 
the peasants and the revolutionary intellectuals. Under the 
rule of the Khrushchov clique, there is no democracy for the 
Soviet working people, there is democracy only for the hand- 
ful of people belonging to the revisionist Khrushchov clique, 
for the privileged stratum and for the bourgeois elements, old 
and new. Khrushchov's "democracy for the whole people" 
is nothing but out-and-out bourgeois democracy, i.e., a despot- 
ic dictatorship of the Khrushchov clique over the Soviet people. 

In the Soviet Union today, anyone who persists in the pro- 
letarian stand, upholds Marxism-Leninism and has the courage 
to speak out, to resist or to fight is watched, followed, sum- 
moned, and even arrested, imprisoned or diagnosed as "men- 
tally ill" and sent to "mental hospitals". Recently the Soviet 
press has declared that it is necessary to "fight" against those 
who show even the slightest dissatisfaction, and called for "re- 
lentless battle" against the "rotten jokers" 1 who are so bold 
as to make sarcastic remarks about Khrushchov's agricultural 
policy. It is particularly astonishing that the revisionist 
Khrushchov clique should have on more than one occasion 
bloodily suppressed striking workers and the masses who put 
up resistance. 



Izvestia, March 10, 1964. 

452 



The formula of abolishing the dictatorship of the proletariat 
while keeping a state of the whole people reveals the secret 
of the revisionist Khrushchov clique; that is, they are firmly 
opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat but will not give 
up state power till their doom. The revisionist Khrushchov 
clique know the paramount importance of controlling state 
power. They need the state machinery for repressing the 
Soviet working people and the Marxist-Leninists. They need 
it for clearing the way for the restoration of capitalism in the 
Soviet Union. These are Khrushchov's real aims in raising 
the banners of the "state of the whole people" and "democracy 
for the whole people". 

REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY 
OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE 

At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly raised 
another banner, the alteration of the proletarian character of 
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He announced 
the replacement of the party of the proletariat by a "party of 
the entire people". The programme of the CPSU states: 

As a result of the victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and 
the consolidation of the unity of Soviet society, the Com- 
munist Party of the working class has become the vanguard 
of the Soviet people, a party of the entire people. 

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says 
that the CPSU "has become a political organization of the 
entire people". 

How absurd! 

Elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that, 
like the state, a political party is an instrument of class strug- 
gle. Every political party has a class character. Party spirit 
is the concentrated expression of class character. There is 
no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party and 

453 



there never has been, nor is there such a thing as a "party of 
the entire people" that does not represent the interests of a 
particular class. 

The party of the proletariat is built in accordance with the 
revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism- 
Leninism; it is the party formed by the advanced elements 
who are boundlessly faithful to the historical mission of the 
proletariat, it is the organized vanguard of the proletariat and 
the highest form of its organization. The party of the prole- 
tariat represents the interests of the proletariat and the con- 
centration of its will. 

Moreover, the party of the proletariat is the only party 
able to represent the interests of the people, who constitute 
over 90 per cent of the total population. The reason is that 
the interests of the proletariat are identical with those of the 
working masses, that the proletarian party can approach prob- 
lems in the light of the historical role as the proletariat and 
in terms of the present and future interests of the proletariat 
and the working masses and of the best interests of the over- 
whelming majority of the people, and that it can give correct 
leadership in accordance with Marxism-Leninism. 

In addition to its members of working-class origin, the party 
of the proletariat has members of other class origins. But the 
latter do not join the Party as representatives of other classes. 
From the very day they join the Party they must abandon 
their former class stand and take the stand of the proletariat. 
Marx and Engels said: 

If people of this kind from other classes join the prole- 
tarian movement, the first condition must be that they 
should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, 
etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt 
the proletarian outlook. 1 



1 "Marx and Engels to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and 
Others ("Circular Letter"), Sept. 17-18, 1879", Selected Works of Karl 
Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, 
p. 440. 

454 



The basic principles concerning the character of the prole- 
tarian party were long ago elucidated by Marxism-Leninism. 
But in the opinion of the revisionist Khrushchov clique these 
principles are "stereotyped formulas", while their "party of 
the entire people" conforms to the "actual dialectics of the 
development of the Communist Party". 1 

The revisionist Khrushchov clique have cudgelled their 
brains to think up arguments justifying their "party of the 
entire people". They have argued during the talks between 
the Chinese and Soviet Parties in July 1963 and in the Soviet 
press that they have changed the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union into a "party of the entire people" because: 

(1) The CPSU expresses the interests of the whole people. 

(2) The entire people have accepted the Marxist-Leninist 
world outlook of the working class, and the aim of the work- 
ing class — the building of communism — has become the 
aim of the entire people. 

(3) The ranks of the CPSU consist of the best representa- 
tives of the workers, collective farmers and intellectuals. 
The CPSU unites in its own ranks representatives of over 
a hundred nationalities and peoples. 

(4) The democratic method used in the Party's activities 
is also in accord with its character as the Party of the entire 
people. 

It is obvious even at a glance that none of these arguments 
adduced by the revisionist Khrushchov clique shows a serious 
approach to a serious problem. 

When Lenin was fighting the opportunist muddle-heads, he 
remarked: 

Can people obviously incapable of taking serious problems 
seriously, themselves be taken seriously? It is difficult to 
do so, comrades, very difficult! But the question which 



1 "From the Party of the Working Class to the Party of the Whole 
Soviet People", editorial board article in Partyinaya Zhizn, No. 8, 1964. 

455 



certain people cannot treat seriously is in itself so serious 
that it will do no harm to examine even patently frivolous 
replies to it. 1 

Today, too, it will do no harm to examine the patently 
frivolous replies given by the revisionist Khrushchov clique to 
so serious a question as that of the party of the proletariat. 

According to the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Com- 
munist Party should become a "party of the entire people" 
because it expresses the interests of the entire people. Does 
it not then follow that from the very beginning it should have 
been a "party of the entire people" instead of a party of the 
proletariat? 

According to the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Com- 
munist Party should become a "party of the entire people" be- 
cause "the entire people have accepted the Marxist-Leninist 
world outlook of the working class". But how can it be said 
that everyone has accepted the Marxist-Leninist world outlook 
in Soviet society where sharp class polarization and class 
struggle are taking place? Can it be said that the tens of 
thousands of old and new bourgeois elements in your country 
are all Marxist-Leninists? If Marxism-Leninism has really 
be come the world outlook of the entire people, as you allege, 
does it not then follow that there is no difference in your 
society between Party and non-Party and no need whatsoever 
for the Party to exist? What difference does it make if there 
is a "party of the entire people" or not? 

According to the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Com- 
munist Party should become a "party of the entire people" 
because its membership consists of workers, peasants and 
intellectuals and all nationalities and peoples. Does this mean 
then that before the idea of the "party of the entire people" 
was put forward at its 22nd Congress none of the members of 
the CPSU came from classes other than the working class? 

'V. I. Lenin, "Clarity First and Foremost!", Collected Works, Eng. 
ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 544. 

456 



Does it mean that formerly the members of the Party all came 
from just one nationality, to the exclusion of other nationalities 
and peoples? If the character of a party is determined by 
the social background of its membership, does it not then fol- 
low that the numerous political parties in the world whose 
members also come from various classes, nationalities and 
peoples are all "parties of the entire people"? 

According to the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Party 
should be a "party of the entire people" because the methods 
it uses in its activities are democratic. But from its outset, a 
Communist Party is built on the basis of the principle of 
democratic centralism and should always adopt the mass line 
and the democratic method of persuasion and education in 
working among the people. Does it not then follow that a 
Communist Party is a "party of the entire people" from the 
first day of its founding? 

Briefly, none of the arguments listed by the revisionist 
Khrushchov clique holds water. 

Besides making a great fuss about a "party of the entire 
people", Khrushchov has also divided the Party , into an "in- 
dustrial Party" and an "agricultural Party" on the pretext 
of "building the Party organs on the production principle". 1 

The revisionist Khrushchov clique say that they have done 
so because of "the primacy of economics over politics under 
socialism" 2 and because they want to place "the economic and 
production problems, which have been pushed to the forefront 
by the entire course of the communist construction, at the 
centre of the activities of the Party organizations" and make 
them "the cornerstone of all their work". 3 Khrushchov said, 
"We say bluntly that the main thing in the work of the Party 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report at the Plenary Meeting of the Central 
Committee of the CPSU, November 1962. 

2 "Study, Know, Act", editorial of Economicheskaya Gazeta, No. 50, 
1962. 

3 "The Communist and Production", editorial of Kommunist, Moscow, 
No. 2, 1963. 

457 



organs is production." 1 And what is more, they have foisted 
these views on Lenin, claiming that they are acting in accord- 
ance with his principles. 

However, anyone at all acquainted with the history of the 
CPSU knows that, far from being Lenin's views, they are anti- 
Leninist views and that they were views held by Trotsky. On 
this question, too, Khrushchov is a worthy disciple of Trotsky. 

In criticizing Trotsky and Bukharin, Lenin said: 

Politics are the concentrated expression of economics. . . . 
Politics cannot but have precedence over economics. To 
argue differently means forgetting the A B C of Marxism. 

He continued: 

. . . without a proper political approach to the subject the 
given class cannot maintain its rule, and consequently can- 
not solve its own production problems. 2 

The facts are crystal clear: the real purpose of the revisionist 
Khrushchov clique in proposing a "party of the entire people" 
was completely to alter the proletarian character of the CPSU 
and transform the Marxist-Leninist Party into a revisionist 
party. 

The great Communist Party of the Soviet Union is con- 
fronted with the grave danger of degenerating from a party 
of the proletariat into a party of the bourgeoisie and from a 
Marxist-Leninist into a revisionist party. 

Lenin said: 

A party that wants to exist cannot allow the slightest 
wavering on the question of its existence or any agreement 
with those who may bury it. 3 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Election Meeting of the Kalinin 
Constituency of Moscow, February 27, 1963. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Present Situation 
and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. IX, pp. 54 and 55. 

3 V. I. Lenin, "How Vera Zasulich Demolishes Liquidationism", Col- 
lected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XIX, p. 414. 

458 



At present, the revisionist Khrushchov clique is again con- 
fronting the broad membership of the great Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union with precisely this serious question. 



KHRUSHCHOV S PHONEY COMMUNISM 

At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchov announced 
that the Soviet Union had already entered the period of the 
extensive building of communist society. He also declared 
that "we shall, in the main, have built a communist society 
within twenty years". 1 This is pure fraud. 

How can there be talk of building communism when the 
revisionist Khrushchov clique are leading the Soviet Union 
onto the path of the restoration of capitalism and when the 
Soviet people are in grave danger of losing the fruits of 
socialism? 

In putting up the signboard of "building communism" 
Khrushchov's real aim is to conceal the true face of his revi- 
sionism. But it is not hard to expose this trick. Just as the 
eyeball of a fish cannot be allowed to pass as a pearl, so 
revisionism cannot be allowed to pass itself off as communism. 

Scientific communism has a precise and definite meaning. 
According to Marxism-Leninism, communist society is a so- 
ciety in which classes and class differences are completely 
eliminated, the entire people have a high level of communist 
consciousness and morality as well as boundless enthusiasm for 
and initiative in labour, there is a great abundance of social 
products and the principle of "from each according to his 
ability, to each according to his needs" is applied, and in which 
the state has withered away. 

Marx declared: 

In the higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving 
subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and 



'N. S. Khrushchov, Report on the Programme of the CPSU, delivered 
at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October 1961. 

459 



therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical 
labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a 
means of life but life's prime want; after the productive 
forces have also increased with the all-round development 
of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth 
flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon 
of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society 
inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, 
to each according to his needs! 1 

According to Marxist-Leninist theory, the purpose of up- 
holding the dictatorship of the proletariat in the period of so- 
cialism is precisely to ensure that society develops in the 
direction of communism. Lenin said that "forward develop- 
ment, i.e., towards Communism, proceeds through the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise". 2 Since 
the revisionist Khrushchov clique have abandoned the dicta- 
torship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, it is going back- 
ward and not forward, going backward to capitalism and not 
forward to communism. 

Going forward to communism means moving towards the 
abolition of all classes and class differences. A communist 
society which preserves any classes at all, let alone exploiting 
classes, is inconceivable. Yet Khrushchov is fostering a new 
bourgeoisie, restoring and extending the system of exploitation 
and accelerating class polarization in the Soviet Union. A 
privileged bourgeois stratum opposed to the Soviet people 
now occupies the ruling position in the Party and government 
and in the economic, cultural and other departments. Can 
one find an iota of communism in all this? 

Going forward to communism means moving towards a 
unitary system of the ownership of the means of production 

1 Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of 
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. 
II, p. 23. 

2 V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., 
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 291. 

460 



by the whole people. A communist society in which several 
kinds of ownership of the means of production coexist is in- 
conceivable. Yet Khrushchov is creating a situation in which 
enterprises owned by the whole people are gradually 
degenerating into capitalist enterprises and farms under the 
system of collective ownership are gradually degenerating into 
units of a kulak economy. Again, can one find an iota of 
communism in all this? 

Going forward to communism means moving towards a 
great abundance of social products and the realization of the 
principle of "from each according to his ability, to each ac- 
cording to his needs". A communist society built on the en- 
richment of a handful of persons and the impoverishment of 
the masses is inconceivable. Under the socialist system the 
great Soviet people developed the social productive forces at 
unprecedented speed. But the evils of Khrushchov's revision- 
ism are creating havoc in the Soviet socialist economy. Con- 
stantly beset with innumerable contradictions, Khrushchov 
makes frequent changes in his economic policies and often 
goes back on his own words, thus throwing the Soviet national 
economy into a state of chaos. Khrushchov is truly an in- 
corrigible wastrel. He has squandered the grain reserves 
built up under Stalin and brought great difficulties into the 
lives of the Soviet people. He has distorted and violated the 
socialist principle of distribution of "from each according to 
his ability, to each according to his work", and enabled a hand- 
ful of persons to appropriate the fruits of the labour of the 
broad masses of the Soviet people. These points alone are 
sufficient to prove that the road taken by Khrushchov leads 
away from communism. 

Going forward to communism means moving towards en- 
hancing the communist consciousness of the masses. A com- 
munist society with bourgeois ideas running rampant is in- 
conceivable. Yet Khrushchov is zealously reviving bourgeois 
ideology in the Soviet Union and serving as a missionary for 
the decadent American culture. By propagating material 

461 



incentive, he is turning all human relations into money rela- 
tions and encouraging individualism and selfishness. Because 
of him, manual labour is again considered sordid and love of 
pleasure at the expense of other people's labour is again con- 
sidered honourable. Certainly, the social ethics and atmos- 
phere promoted by Khrushchov are far removed from 
communism, as far as far can be. 

Going forward to communism means moving towards the 
withering away of the state. A communist society with a 
state apparatus for oppressing the people is in conceivable. The 
state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually no longer 
a state in its original sense, because it is no longer a machine 
used by the exploiting few to oppress the overwhelming ma- 
jority of the people but a machine for exercising dictatorship 
over a very small number of exploiters, while democracy is 
practised among the overwhelming majority of the people. 
Khrushchov is altering the character of Soviet state power and 
changing the dictatorship of the proletariat back into an in- 
strument whereby a handful of privileged bourgeois elements 
exercise dictatorship over the mass of the Soviet workers, 
peasants and intellectuals. He is continuously strengthening 
his dictatorial state apparatus and intensifying his repression 
of the Soviet people. It is indeed a great mockery to talk 
about communism in these circumstances. 

A comparison of all this with the principles of scientific 
communism readily reveals that in every respect the revisionist 
Khrushchov clique are leading the Soviet Union away from 
the path of socialism and onto the path of capitalism and, as 
a consequence, further and further away from, instead of 
closer to, the communist goal of "from each according to his 
ability, to each according to his needs". 

Khrushchov has ulterior motives when he puts up the sign- 
board of communism. He is using it to fool the Soviet people 
and cover up his effort to restore capitalism. He is using it 
to deceive the international proletariat and the revolutionary 
people the world over and betray proletarian internationalism. 

462 



Under this signboard, the Khrushchov clique has itself 
abandoned proletarian internationalism and is seeking a 
partnership with U.S. imperialism for the partition of the 
world; moreover, it wants the fraternal socialist countries to 
serve its own private interests and not to oppose imperialism 
or to support the revolutions of the oppressed peoples and 
nations, and it wants them to accept its political, economic and 
military control and be its virtual dependencies and colonies. 
Furthermore, the Khrushchov clique wants all the oppressed 
peoples and nations to serve its private interests and abandon 
their revolutionary struggles, so as not to disturb its sweet 
dream of partnership with imperialism for the division of the 
world, and instead submit to enslavement and oppression by 
imperialism and its lackeys. 

In short, Khrushchov's slogan of basically "building a com- 
munist society within twenty years" in the Soviet Union is 
not only false but also reactionary. 

The revisionist Khrushchov clique say that the Chinese "go 
to the length of questioning the very right of our Party and 
people to build communism". 1 This is a despicable attempt 
to fool the Soviet people and poison the friendship of the Chi- 
nese and Soviet people. We have never had any doubt that 
the great Soviet people will eventually enter into communist 
society. But right now the revisionist Khrushchov clique are 
damaging the socialist fruits of the Soviet people and taking 
away their right to go forward to communism. In the cir- 
cumstances, the issue confronting the Soviet people is not how 
to build communism but rather how to resist and oppose 
Khrushchov's effort to restore capitalism. 

The revisionist Khrushchov clique also say that "the CPC 
leaders hint that, since our Party has made its aim a better life 
for the people, Soviet society is being 'bourgeoisified', is 



1 M. A. Suslov, Report at the Plenary Meeting of the Central Com- 
mittee of the CPSU, February 1964. 

463 



'degenerating'". 1 This trick of deflecting the Soviet people's 
dissatisfaction with the Khrushchov clique is deplorable as 
well as stupid. We sincerely wish the Soviet people an in- 
creasingly better life. But Khrushchov's boasts of "concern 
for the well-being of the people" and of "a better life for 
every man" are utterly false and demagogic. For the masses 
of the Soviet people life is already bad enough at Khrushchov's 
hands. The Khrushchov clique seek a "better life" only for 
the members of the privileged stratum and the bourgeois ele- 
ments, old and new, in the Soviet Union. These people are 
appropriating the fruits of the Soviet people's labour and living 
the life of bourgeois lords. They have indeed become 
thoroughly bourgeoisified. 

Khrushchov's "communism" is in essence a variant of bour- 
geois socialism. He does not regard communism as completely 
abolishing classes and class differences but describes it as "a 
bowl accessible to all and brimming with the products of 
physical and mental labour". 2 He does not regard the strug- 
gle of the working class for communism as a struggle for the 
thorough emancipation of all mankind as well as itself but 
describes it as a struggle for "a good dish of goulash". There 
is not an iota of scientific communism in his head but only 
the image of a society of bourgeois philistines. 

Khrushchov's "communism" takes the United States for its 
model. Imitation of the methods of management of U.S. 
capitalism and the bourgeois way of life has been raised by 
Khrushchov to the level of state policy. He says that he "al- 
ways thinks highly" of the achievements of the United States. 
He "rejoices in these achievements, is a little envious at 



1 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the 
Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech for the Austrian Radio and Television, 
July 7, 1960. 

464 



times". 1 He extols to the sky a letter by Roswell Garst, a big 
U.S. farmer, which propagates the capitalist system; 2 actually 
he has taken it as his agricultural programme. He wants to 
copy the United States in the sphere of industry as well as 
that of agriculture and, in particular, to imitate the profit 
motive of U.S. capitalist enterprises. He shows great admira- 
tion for the American way of life, asserting that the American 
people "do not live badly" 3 under the rule and enslavement 
of monopoly capital. Going further, Khrushchov is hopeful of 
building communism with loans from U.S. imperialism. During 
his visits to the United States and Hungary, he expressed on 
more than one occasion his readiness "to take credits from the 
devil himself. 

Thus it can be seen that Khrushchov's "communism" is in- 
deed "goulash communism", the "communism of the American 
way of life" and "communism seeking credits from the devil". 
No wonder he often tells representatives of Western monopoly 
capital that once such "communism" is realized in the Soviet 
Union, "you will go forward to communism without any call 
from me". 4 

There is nothing new about such "communism". It is simply 
another name for capitalism. It is only a bourgeois label, 
sign or advertisement. In ridiculing the old-line revisionist 
parties which set up the signboard of Marxism, Lenin said: 

Wherever Marxism is popular among the workers, this 
political tendency, this "bourgeois labour party," will swear 
by the name of Marx. It cannot be prohibited from doing 



1 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Leaders of U.S. Congress and 
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, September 16, 
1959. 

2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the Central 
Committee of the CPSU, February 1964. 

3 N. S. Khrushchov, Talk at a Meeting with Businessman and Public 
Leaders in Pittsburgh, U.S.A., September 24, 1959. 

4 N. S. Khrushchov, Talk at a Meeting with French Parliamentarians, 
March 25, 1960. 

465 



this, just as a trading firm cannot be prohibited from using 
any particular label, sign, or advertisement. 1 

It is thus easily understandable why Khrushchov's "com- 
munism" is appreciated by imperialism and monopoly capital. 
The U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk has said: 

. . . to the extent that goulash and the second pair of 
trousers and questions of that sort become more important 
in the Soviet Union, I think to that extent a moderating in- 
fluence has come into the present scene. 2 

And the British Prime Minister Douglas-Home has said: 

Mr. Khrushchov said that the Russian brand of commu- 
nism puts education and goulash first. That is good; goulash- 
communism is better than war-communism, and I am glad 
to have this confirmation of our view that fat and comfort- 
able Communists are better than lean and hungry Com- 
munists. 3 

Khrushchov's revisionism entirely caters to the policy of 
"peaceful evolution" which U.S. imperialism is pursuing with 
regard to the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. John 
Foster Dulles said: 

. . . there was evidence within the Soviet Union of forces 
toward greater liberalism which, if they persisted, could 
bring about a basic change within the Soviet Union. 4 

The liberal forces Dulles talked about are capitalist forces. 
The basic change Dulles hoped for is the degeneration of so- 
cialism into capitalism. Khrushchov is effecting exactly the 
"basic change" Dulles dreamed of. 

1 V. I. Lenin, "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", Selected 
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, Vol. XI, 
p. 761. 

2 Dean Rusk, Interview on British Broadcasting Corporation Tele- 
vision, May 10, 1964. 

3 A. Douglas Home, Speech at Norwich, England, April 6, 1964. 

4 J. F. Dulles, Press Conference, May 15, 1956. 

466 



How the imperialists are hoping for the restoration of capi- 
talism in the Soviet Union! How they are rejoicing! 

We would advise the imperialist lords not to be happy too 
soon. Notwithstanding all the services of the revisionist Khru- 
shchov clique, nothing can save imperialism from its doom. 
The revisionist ruling clique suffer from the same kind of 
disease as the imperialist ruling clique; they are extremely 
antagonistic to the masses of the people who comprise over 90 
per cent of the world's population, and therefore they, too, are 
weak and powerless and are paper tigers. Like the clay Bud- 
dha that tried to wade across the river, the revisionist Khru- 
shchov clique cannot even save themselves, so how can they 
endow imperialism with long life? 



HISTORICAL LESSONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP 
OF THE PROLETARIAT 



Khrushchov's revisionism has inflicted heavy damage on 
the international communist movement, but at the same time 
it has educated the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary peo- 
ple throughout the world by negative example. 

If it may be said that the Great October Revolution provided 
Marxist-Leninists in all countries with the most important 
positive experience and opened up the road for the proletarian 
seizure of political power, then on its part Khrushchov's re- 
visionism may be said to have provided them with the most 
important negative experience, enabling Marxist-Leninists in 
all countries to draw the appropriate lessons for preventing the 
degeneration of the proletarian party and the socialist state. 

Historically all revolutions have had their reverses and 
their twists and turns. Lenin once asked: 

... if we take the matter in its essence, has it ever hap- 
pened in history that a new mode of production took root 

467 



immediately, without a long succession of setbacks, blunders 
and relapses? 1 

The international proletarian revolution has a history of 
less than a century counting from 1871 when the proletariat 
of the Paris Commune made the first heroic attempt at the 
seizure of political power, or barely half a century counting 
from the October Revolution. The proletarian revolution, the 
greatest revolution in human history, replaces capitalism by 
socialism and private ownership by public ownership and 
uproots all the systems of exploitation and all the exploiting 
classes. It is all the more natural that so earth-shaking a 
revolution should have to go through serious and fierce class 
struggles, inevitably traverse a long and tortuous course beset 
with reverses. 

History furnishes a number of examples in which proletarian 
rule suffered defeat as a result of armed suppression by the 
bourgeoisie, for instance, the Paris Commune and the Hun- 
garian Soviet Republic of 1919. In contemporary times, too, 
there was the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary in 
1956, when the rule of the proletariat was almost overthrown. 
People can easily perceive this form of capitalist restoration 
and are more alert and watchful against it. 

However, they cannot easily perceive and are often off their 
guard or not vigilant against another form of capitalist restora- 
tion, which therefore presents a greater danger. The state of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the road of revision- 
ism or the road of "peaceful evolution" as a result of the 
degeneration of the leadership of the Party and the state. A 
lesson of this kind was provided some years ago by the revi- 
sionist Tito clique who brought about the degeneration of so- 
cialist Yugoslavia into a capitalist country. But the Yugoslav 
lesson alone has not sufficed to arouse people's attention fully. 
Some may say that perhaps it was an accident. 

'V. I. Lenin, "A Great Beginning", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, 
Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 229. 

468 



But now the revisionist Khrushchov clique have usurped 
the leadership of the Party and the state, and there is grave 
danger of a restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, the 
land of the Great October Revolution with its history of several 
decades in building socialism. And this sounds the alarm 
for all socialist countries, including China, and for all the Com- 
munist and Workers' Parties, including the Communist Party 
of China. Inevitably it arouses very great attention and forces 
Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people the world over to 
ponder deeply and sharpen their vigilance. 

The emergence of Khrushchov's revisionism is a bad thing, 
and it is also a good thing. So long as the countries where 
socialism has been achieved and also those that will later em- 
bark on the socialist road seriously study the lessons of the 
"peaceful evolution" promoted by the revisionist Khrushchov 
clique and take the appropriate measures, they will be able to 
prevent this kind of "peaceful evolution" as well as crush 
the enemy's armed attacks. Thus, the victory of the world 
proletarian revolution will be more certain. 

The Communist Party of China has a history of forty-three 
years. During its protracted revolutionary struggle, our 
Party combated both Right and "Left" opportunist errors and 
the Marxist-Leninist leadership of the Central Committee 
headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung was established. Closely 
integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the 
concrete practice of revolution and construction in China, 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung has led the Chinese people from vic- 
tory to victory. The Central Committee of the Chinese Com- 
munist Party and Comrade Mao Tse-tung have taught us to 
wage unremitting struggle in the theoretical, political and 
organizational fields, as well as in practical work, so as to 
combat revisionism and prevent a restoration of capitalism. 
The Chinese people have gone through protracted revolu- 
tionary armed struggles and possess a glorious revolutionary 
tradition. The Chinese People's Liberation Army is armed 
with Mao Tse-tung 's thinking and inseparably linked to the 

469 



masses. The numerous cadres of the Chinese Communist 
Party have been educated and tempered in rectification move- 
ments and sharp class struggles. All these factors make it 
very difficult to restore capitalism in our country. 

But let us look at the facts. Is our society today thoroughly 
clean? No, it is not. Classes and class struggle still remain, 
the activities of the overthrown reactionary classes plotting a 
comeback still continue, and we still have speculative activi- 
ties by old and new bourgeois elements and desperate forays 
by embezzlers, grafters and degenerates. There are also cases 
of degeneration in a few primary organizations; what is more, 
these degenerates do their utmost to find protectors and agents 
in the higher leading bodies. We should not in the least 
slacken our vigilance against such phenomena but must keep 
fully alert. 

The struggle in the socialist countries between the road of 
socialism and the road of capitalism — between the forces of 
capitalism attempting a comeback and the forces opposing it — 
is unavoidable. But the restoration of capitalism in the so- 
cialist countries and their degeneration into capitalist countries 
are certainly not unavoidable. We can prevent the restora- 
tion of capitalism so long as there is a correct leadership and 
a correct understanding of the problem, so long as we adhere 
to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line, take the appro- 
priate measures and wage a prolonged, unremitting struggle. 
The struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads can 
become a driving force for social advance. 

How can the restoration of capitalism be prevented? On 
this question Comrade Mao Tse-tung has formulated a set 
of theories and policies, after summing up the practical ex- 
perience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China and 
studying the positive and negative experience of other coun- 
tries, mainly of the Soviet Union, in accordance with the basic 
principles of Marxism-Leninism, and has thus enriched and 
developed the Marxist Leninist theory of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat. 

470 



The main contents of the theories and policies advanced 
by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in this connection are as follows: 

FIRST, it is necessary to apply the Marxist-Leninist law of 
the unity of opposites to the study of socialist society. The 
law of contradiction in all things, i.e., the law of the unity 
of opposites, is the fundamental law of materialist dialectics. 
It operates everywhere, whether in the natural world, in 
human society, or in human thought. The opposites in a con- 
tradiction both unite and struggle with each other, and it is 
this that forces things to move and change. Socialist society 
is no exception. In socialist society there are two kinds of 
social contradictions, namely, the contradictions among the 
people and those between ourselves and the enemy. These 
two kinds of social contradictions are entirely different in their 
essence, and the methods for handling them should be dif- 
ferent, too. Their correct handling will result in the increas- 
ing consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
further strengthening and development of socialist society. 
Many people acknowledge the law of the unity of opposites 
but are unable to apply it in studying and handling questions 
in socialist society. They refuse to admit that there are con- 
tradictions in socialist society — that there are not only con- 
tradictions between ourselves and the enemy but also con- 
tradictions among the people — and they do not know how 
to distinguish between these two kinds of social contradictions 
and how to handle them correctly, and are therefore unable 
to deal correctly with the question of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. 

SECOND, socialist society covers a very long historical 
period. Classes and class struggle continue to exist in this 
society, and the struggle still goes on between the road of so- 
cialism and the road of capitalism. The socialist revolution on 
the economic front (in the ownership of the means of produc- 
tion) is insufficient by itself and cannot be consolidated. There 
must also be a thorough socialist revolution on the political and 
ideological fronts. Here a very long period of time is needed 

471 



to decide "who will win" in the struggle between socialism 
and capitalism. Several decades won't do it; success requires 
anywhere from one to several centuries. On the question of 
duration, it is better to prepare for a longer rather than a 
shorter period of time. On the question of effort, it is better 
to regard the task as difficult rather than easy. It will be 
more advantageous and less harmful to think and act in this 
way. Anyone who fails to see this or to appreciate it fully 
will make tremendous mistakes. During the historical period 
of socialism it is necessary to maintain the dictatorship of the 
proletariat and carry the socialist revolution through to the 
end if the restoration of capitalism is to be prevented, socialist 
construction carried forward and the conditions created for 
the transition to communism. 

THIRD, the dictatorship of the proletariat is led by the 
working class, with the worker-peasant alliance as its basis. 
This means the exercise of dictatorship by the working class 
and by the people under its leadership over the reactionary 
classes and individuals and those elements who oppose socialist 
transformation and socialist construction. Within the ranks 
of the people democratic centralism is practised. Ours is the 
broadest democracy beyond the bounds of possibility for any 
bourgeois state. 

FOURTH, in both socialist revolution and socialist construc- 
tion it is necessary to adhere to the mass line, boldly to arouse 
the masses and to unfold mass movements on a large scale. 
The mass line of "from the masses, to the masses" is the basic 
line in all the work of our Party. It is necessary to have 
firm confidence in the majority of the people and, above all, 
in the majority of the worker-peasant masses. We must be 
good at consulting the masses in our work and under no 
circumstances alienate ourselves from them. Both command- 
ism and the attitude of one dispensing favours have to be 
fought. The full and frank expression of views and great 
debates are important forms of revolutionary struggle which 
have been created by the people of our country in the course 

472 



of their long revolutionary fight, forms of struggle which rely 
on the masses for resolving contradictions among the people 
and contradictions between ourselves and the enemy. 

FIFTH, whether in socialist revolution or in socialist 
construction, it is necessary to solve the question of whom 
to rely on, whom to win over and whom to oppose. The pro- 
letariat and its vanguard must make a class analysis of so- 
cialist society, rely on the truly dependable forces that firmly 
take the socialist road, win over all allies that can be won 
over, and unite with the masses of the people, who constitute 
more than 95 per cent of the population, in a common struggle 
against the enemies of socialism. In the rural areas, after the 
collectivization of agriculture it is necessary to rely on the 
poor and lower middle peasants in order to consolidate the 
dictatorship of the proletariat and the worker-peasant alliance, 
defeat the spontaneous capitalist tendencies and constantly 
strengthen and extend the positions of socialism. 

SIXTH, it is necessary to conduct extensive socialist educa- 
tion movements repeatedly in the cities and the countryside. 
In these continuous movements for educating the people we 
must be good at organizing the revolutionary class forces, en- 
hancing their class consciousness, correctly handling contradic- 
tions among the people and uniting all those who can be united. 
In these movements it is necessary to wage a sharp, tit-for-tat 
struggle against the anti-socialist, capitalist and feudal forces 
— the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries and 
bourgeois rightists, and the embezzlers, grafters and degener- 
ates — in order to smash the attacks they unleash against so- 
cialism and to remould the majority of them into new men. 

SEVENTH, one of the basic tasks of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat is actively to expand the socialist economy. It is 
necessary to achieve the modernization of industry, agricul- 
ture, science and technology, and national defence step by step 
under the guidance of the general policy of developing the na- 
tional economy with agriculture as the foundation and industry 
as the leading factor. On the basis of the growth of produc- 

473 



tion, it is necessary to raise the living standards of the people 
gradually and on a broad scale. 

EIGHTH, ownership by the whole people and collective 
ownership are the two forms of socialist economy. The transi- 
tion from collective ownership to ownership by the whole 
people, from two kinds of ownership to a unitary ownership 
by the whole people, is a rather long process. Collective 
ownership itself develops from lower to higher levels and 
from smaller to larger scale. The people's commune which 
the Chinese people have created is a suitable form of organiza- 
tion for the solution of the question of this transition. 

NINTH, "Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred 
schools of thought contend" is a policy for stimulating the 
growth of the arts and the progress of science and for promot- 
ing a flourishing socialist culture. Education must serve pro- 
letarian politics and must be combined with productive labour. 
The manual workers should at the same time be intellectuals 
and the intellectuals manual workers. Among those engaged 
in science, culture, the arts and education, the struggle to 
promote proletarian ideology and destroy bourgeois ideology 
is a protracted and fierce class struggle. It is necessary to 
build up a large detachment of working-class intellectuals 
who serve socialism and who are both "red and expert", 
i.e., who are both politically conscious and professionally 
competent, by means of the cultural revolution, and revolu- 
tionary practice in class struggle, the struggle for production 
and scientific experiment. 

TENTH, it is necessary to maintain the system of cadre 
participation in collective productive labour. The cadres of 
our Party and state are ordinary workers and not overlords 
sitting on the backs of the people. By taking part in collective 
productive labour, the cadres maintain extensive, constant 
and close ties with the working people. This is a major meas- 
ure of fundamental importance for a socialist system; it helps 
to overcome bureaucracy and to prevent revisionism and 
dogmatism. 

474 



ELEVENTH, the system of high salaries for a small number 
of people should never be applied. The gap between the in- 
comes of the working personnel of the Party, the government, 
the enterprises and the people's communes, on the one hand, 
and the incomes of the mass of the people, on the other, should 
be rationally and gradually narrowed and not widened. All 
working personnel must be prevented from abusing their 
power and enjoying special privileges. 

TWELFTH, it is always necessary for the people's armed 
forces of a socialist country to be under the leadership of the 
Party of the proletariat and under the supervision of the 
masses, and they must always maintain the glorious tradition 
of a people's army, with unity between the army and the peo- 
ple and between officers and men. It is necessary to keep the 
system under which officers serve as common soldiers at reg- 
ular intervals. It is necessary to practise military democracy, 
political democracy and economic democracy. Moreover, 
militia units should be organized and trained all over the coun- 
try, so as to make everybody a soldier. The guns must for 
ever be in the hands of the Party and the people and must 
never be allowed to become the instruments of careerists. 

THIRTEENTH, the people's public security organs must al- 
ways be under the leadership of the Party of the proletariat 
and under the supervision of the mass of the people. In the 
struggle to defend the fruits of socialism and the people's in- 
terests, the policy must be applied of relying on the combined 
efforts of the broad masses and the security organs, so that 
not a single bad person escapes or a single good person is 
wronged. Counter-revolutionaries must be suppressed when- 
ever found, and mistakes must be corrected whenever dis- 
covered. 

FOURTEENTH, in foreign policy, it is necessary to uphold 
proletarian internationalism and oppose great-power chauvin- 
ism and national egoism. The socialist camp is the product of 
the struggle of the international proletariat and working peo- 
ple. It belongs to the proletariat and working people of the 

475 



whole world as well as to the people of the socialist countries. 
We must truly put into effect the fighting slogans, "Workers 
of all countries, unite!" and "Workers and oppressed nations 
of the world, unite!", resolutely combat the anti-Communist, 
anti-popular and counter-revolutionary policies of imperialism 
and reaction and support the revolutionary struggles of all the 
oppressed classes and oppressed nations. Relations among so- 
cialist countries should be based on the principles of independ- 
ence, complete equality and the proletarian internationalist 
principle of mutual support and mutual assistance. Every 
socialist country should rely mainly on itself for its construc- 
tion. If any socialist country practises national egoism in 
its foreign policy, or, worse yet, eagerly works in partnership 
with imperialism for the partition of the world, such conduct 
is degenerate and a betrayal of proletarian internationalism. 

FIFTEENTH, as the vanguard of the proletariat, the Com- 
munist Party must exist as long as the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat exists. The Communist Party is the highest form of 
organization of the proletariat. The leading role of the prole- 
tariat is realized through the leadership of the Communist 
Party. The system of Party committees exercising leadership 
must be put into effect in all departments. During the period 
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian party 
must maintain and strengthen its close ties with the proletariat 
and the broad masses of the working people, maintain and 
develop its vigorous revolutionary style, uphold the principle 
of integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with 
the concrete practice of its own country, and persist in the 
struggle against revisionism, dogmatism and opportunism of 
every kind. 

In the light of the historical lessons of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat Comrade Mao Tse-tung has stated: 

Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific 
experiment are the three great revolutionary movements 
for building a mighty socialist country. These movements 

476 



are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free from 
bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dog- 
matism, and will forever remain invincible. They are a 
reliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able to unite 
with the broad working masses and realize a democratic dic- 
tatorship. If, in the absence of these movements, the land- 
lords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements 
and ogres of all kinds were allowed to crawl out, while our 
cadres were to shut their eyes to all this and in many cases 
fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves 
but were to collaborate with the enemy and become cor- 
rupted and demoralized, if our cadres were thus dragged 
into the enemy camp or the enemy were able to sneak into 
our ranks, and if many of our workers, peasants, and intel- 
lectuals were left defenceless against both the soft and the 
hard tactics of the enemy, then it would not take long, 
perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades 
at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a na- 
tional scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist Party 
would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or a fascist 
party, and the whole of China would change its colour. 1 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung has pointed out that, in order to 
guarantee that our Party and country do not change their 
colour, we must not only have a correct line and correct poli- 
cies but must train and bring up millions of successors who 
will carry on the cause of proletarian revolution. 

In the final analysis, the question of training successors for 
the revolutionary cause of the proletariat is one of whether 
or not there will be people who can carry on the Marxist- 
Leninist revolutionary cause started by the older generation 
of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or not the leadership 
of our Party and state will remain in the hands of proletarian 



1 Mao Tse-tung, Note on "The Seven Well-Written Documents of the 
Chekiang Province Concerning Cadres' Participation in Physical La- 
bour", May 9, 1963. 

477 



revolutionaries, whether or not our descendants will continue 
to march along the correct road laid down by Marxism-Lenin- 
ism, or, in other words, whether or not we can successfully 
prevent the emergence of Khrushchovite revisionism in China. 
In short, it is an extremely important question, a matter of 
life and death for our Party and our country. It is a question 
of fundamental importance to the proletarian revolutionary 
cause for a hundred, a thousand, nay ten thousand years. 
Basing themselves on the changes in the Soviet Union, the 
imperialist prophets are pinning their hopes of "peaceful evo- 
lution" on the third or fourth generation of the Chinese Party. 
We must shatter these imperialist prophecies. From our 
highest organizations down to the grass-roots, we must every- 
where give constant attention to the training and upbringing 
of successors to the revolutionary cause. 

What are the requirements for worthy successors to the 
revolutionary cause of the proletariat? 

They must be genuine Marxist-Leninists and not revision- 
ists like Khrushchov wearing the cloak of Marxism-Leninism. 

They must be revolutionaries who whole-heartedly serve the 
majority of the people of China and the whole world, and 
must not be like Khrushchov who serves both the interests of 
the handful of members of the privileged bourgeois stratum 
in his own country and those of foreign imperialism and 
reaction. 

They must be proletarian statesmen capable of uniting 
and working together with the overwhelming majority. Not 
only must they unite with those who agree with them, they 
must also be good at uniting with those who disagree and 
even with those who formerly opposed them and have since 
been proved wrong. But they must especially watch out for 
careerists and conspirators like Khrushchov and prevent such 
bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and 
government at any level. 

They must be models in applying the Party's democratic 
centralism, must master the method of leadership based on 

478 



the principle of "from the masses, to the masses", and must 
cultivate a democratic style and be good at listening to the 
masses. They must not be despotic like Khrushchov and 
violate the Party's democratic centralism, make surprise at- 
tacks on comrades or act arbitrarily and dictatorially. 

They must be modest and prudent and guard against ar- 
rogance and impetuosity; they must be imbued with the spirit 
of self-criticism and have the courage to correct mistakes and 
shortcomings in their work. They must not cover up their 
errors like Khrushchov, and claim all the credit for them- 
selves and shift all the blame on others. 

Successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat 
come forward in mass struggles and are tempered in the great 
storms of revolution. It is essential to test and know cadres 
and choose and train successors in the long course of mass 
struggle. 

The above series of principles advanced by Comrade Mao 
Tse-tung are creative developments of Marxism-Leninism, to 
the theoretical arsenal of which they add new weapons of 
decisive importance for us in preventing the restoration of 
capitalism. So long as we follow these principles, we can 
consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, ensure that our 
Party and state will never change colour, successfully conduct 
the socialist revolution and socialist construction, help all peo- 
ples' revolutionary movements for the overthrow of imperial- 
ism and its lackeys, and guarantee the future transition from 
socialism to communism. 



Regarding the emergence of the revisionist Khrushchov 
clique in the Soviet Union, our attitude as Marxist-Leninists is 
the same as our attitude towards any "disturbance" — first, 
we are against it; second, we are not afraid of it. 

We did not wish it and are opposed to it, but since the re- 
visionist Khrushchov clique have already emerged, there is 
nothing terrifying about them, and there is no need for alarm. 

479 



The earth will continue to revolve, history will continue to 
move forward, the people of the world will, as always, make 
revolutions, and the imperialists and their lackeys will inevi- 
tably meet their doom. 

The historic contributions of the great Soviet people will 
remain forever glorious; they can never be tarnished by the 
revisionist Khrushchov clique's betrayal. The broad masses 
of the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals and Com- 
munists of the Soviet Union will eventually surmount all 
the obstacles in their path and march towards communism. 

The Soviet people, the people of all the socialist countries 
and the revolutionary people the world over will certainly 
learn lessons from the revisionist Khrushchov clique's be- 
trayal. In the struggle against Khrushchov's revisionism, the 
international communist movement has grown and will con- 
tinue to grow mightier than ever before. 

Marxist-Leninists have always had an attitude of revolu- 
tionary optimism towards the future of the cause of the 
proletarian revolution. We are profoundly convinced that the 
brilliant light of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of social- 
ism and of Marxism-Leninism will shine forth over the Soviet 
land. The proletariat is sure to win the whole world and 
communism is sure to achieve complete and final victory on 
earth. 



WHY 
KHRUSHCHEV FELL 

Editorial. Hongqi {Red Flag) 

(November 21, 1964) 



K, 



.HRUSHCHOV has fallen. 

This arch-schemer who usurped the leadership of the Soviet 
Party and state, this number one representative of modern 
revisionism, has finally been driven off the stage of history. 

This is a very good thing and is advantageous to the rev- 
olutionary cause of the people of the world. 

The collapse of Khrushchov is a great victory for the Marx- 
ist-Leninists of the world in their persistent struggle against 
revisionism. It marks the bankruptcy, the fiasco, of modern 
revisionism. 

How was it that Khrushchov fell? Why couldn't he muddle 
on any longer? 

This question has aroused different comments from dif- 
ferent political groups all over the world. 

The imperialists, the reactionaries, and the opportunists and 
revisionists of all shades, whether they sympathize with 
Khrushchov or have had conflicts of interest with him, have 
expressed varied views on the sudden collapse of this seeming- 
ly "strong man", Khrushchov. 

Many Communist and Workers' Parties have also published 
articles or documents expressing their opinion on Khrushchov's 
downfall. 

In the present article we too would like to discuss the ques- 
tion of Khrushchov's downfall. 

For Marxist-Leninists, this downfall is not something which 
is hard to understand. Indeed, it may be said to have been 
fully expected. Marxist-Leninists had long foreseen that 
Khrushchov would come to such an end. 

People may list hundreds or even thousands of charges 
against Khrushchov to account for his collapse. But the most 
important one of all is that he has vainly tried to obstruct the 
advance of history, flying in the face of the law of historical 

483 



development as discovered by Marxism-Leninism and of the 
revolutionary will of the people of the Soviet Union and the 
whole world. Any obstacle on the peoples road of advance 
must be removed. The people were sure to reject Khrushchov, 
whether he and his kind liked it or not. Khrushchov's down- 
fall is the inevitable result of the anti-revisionist struggle 
waged staunchly by the people of the Soviet Union and rev- 
olutionary people throughout the world. 

Ours is an epoch in which world capitalism and imperialism 
are moving to their doom and socialism and communism are 
marching towards victory. The historic mission this epoch 
has placed on the people is to bring the proletarian world rev- 
olution step by step to complete victory and establish a new 
world without imperialism, without capitalism and without 
the exploitation of man by man through their own efforts and 
in the light of the concrete conditions of their respective coun- 
tries. This is the inexorable trend of historical development 
and the common demand of the revolutionary people of the 
world. This historical trend is an objective law which operates 
independently of man's will, and it is irresistible. But Khrush- 
chov, this buffoon on the contemporary political stage, chose 
to go against this trend in the vain hope of turning the wheel 
of history back onto the old capitalist road and of thus pro- 
longing the life of the moribund exploiting classes and their 
moribund system of exploitation. 

Khrushchov collected all the anti-Marxist views of history's 
opportunists and revisionists and out of them knocked together 
a full-fledged revisionist line consisting of "peaceful co- 
existence", "peaceful competition", "peaceful transition", "the 
state of the whole people" and "the party of the entire people". 
He pursued a capitulationist line towards imperialism and 
used the theory of class conciliation to oppose and liquidate 
the people's revolutionary struggles. In the international 
communist movement, he enforced a divisive line, replacing 
proletarian internationalism with great-power chauvinism. In 
the Soviet Union he worked hard to disintegrate the dictator- 

484 



ship of the proletariat, attempting to replace the socialist 
system with the ideology, politics, economy and culture of the 
bourgeoisie, and to restore capitalism. 

In the last eleven years, exploiting the prestige of the Com- 
munist Party of the Soviet Union and of the first socialist 
country that had been built up under the leadership of Lenin 
and Stalin, Khrushchov did all the bad things he possibly 
could in contravention of the genuine will of the Soviet 
people. These bad things may be summed up as follows: 

1. On the pretext of "combating the personality cult" and 
using the most scurrilous language, he railed at Stalin, the 
leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the 
Soviet people. In opposing Stalin, he opposed Marxism- 
Leninism. He tried at one stroke to write off all the great 
achievements of the Soviet people in the entire period under 
Stalin's leadership in order to defame the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, the socialist system, the great Soviet Communist 
Party, the great Soviet Union and the international communist 
movement. In so doing, Khrushchov provided the imperialists 
and the reactionaries of all countries with the dirtiest of 
weapons for their anti-Soviet and anti-Communist activities. 

2. In open violation of the Declaration of 1957 and the 
Statement of 1960, he sought "all-round co-operation" with 
U.S. imperialism and fallaciously maintained that the heads 
of the Soviet Union and the United States would "decide the 
fate of humanity", constantly praising the chieftains of U.S. 
imperialism as "having a sincere desire for peace". Pursuing 
an adventurist policy at one moment, he transported guided 
missiles to Cuba, and pursuing a capitulationist policy at an- 
other, he docilely withdrew the missiles and bombers from 
Cuba on the order of the U.S. pirates. He accepted inspec- 
tion by the U.S. fleet and even tried to sell out Cuba's sover- 
eignty by agreeing, behind the Cuban Government's back, to 
the "inspection" of Cuba by the United Nations, which is 
under U.S. control. In so doing, Khrushchov brought a humil- 

485 



iating disgrace upon the great Soviet people unheard of in 
the forty years and more since the October Revolution. 

3. To cater to the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear black- 
mail and prevent socialist China from building up her own 
nuclear strength for self-defence, he did not hesitate to damage 
the defense capabilities of the Soviet Union itself and con- 
cluded the so-called partial nuclear test ban treaty in collusion 
with the two imperialist powers of the United States and 
Britain. Facts have shown that this treaty is a pure swindle. 
In signing this treaty Khrushchov perversely tried to sell out 
the interests of the Soviet people, the people of all the socialist 
countries and all the peace-loving people of the world. 

4. In the name of "peaceful transition" he tried by every 
means to obstruct the revolutionary movements of the people 
in the capitalist countries, demanding that they take the so- 
called legal, parliamentary road. This erroneous line paralyses 
the revolutionary will of the proletariat and disarms the rev- 
olutionary people ideologically, causing serious setbacks to the 
cause of revolution in certain countries. It has made the 
Communist Parties in a number of capitalist countries lifeless 
social-democratic parties of a new type and caused them to 
degenerate into servile tools of the bourgeoisie. 

5. Under the signboard of "peaceful coexistence" he did 
his utmost to oppose and sabotage the national liberation 
movement and went so far as to work hand in glove with U.S. 
imperialism in suppressing the revolutionary struggles of the 
oppressed nations. He instructed the Soviet delegate at the 
United Nations to vote for the dispatch of forces of aggression 
to the Congo, which helped the U.S. imperialists to suppress 
the Congolese people, and he used Soviet transport facilities 
to move these so-called United Nations troops to the Congo. 
He actually opposed the revolutionary struggles of the Alge- 
rian people, describing the Algerian national liberation strug- 
gle as an "internal affair" of France. He had the audacity to 
"stand aloof over the events in the Gulf of Bac Bo engineered 
by U.S. imperialism against Viet Nam, and cudgelled his brains 

486 



for ways to help the U.S. provocateurs get out of their pre- 
dicament and to whitewash the criminal aggression of the 
U.S. pirates. 

6. In brazen violation of the Statement of 1960, he spared 
no effort to reverse its verdict on the renegade Tito clique, 
describing Tito who had degenerated into a lackey of U.S. 
imperialism as a "Marxist-Leninist" and Yugoslavia which had 
degenerated into a capitalist country as a "socialist country". 
Time and again he declared that he and the Tito clique ha 

"the same ideology" and were "guided by the same theory" 
and expressed his desire to learn modestly from this renegade 
who had betrayed the interests of the Yugoslav people and 
sabotaged the international communist movement. 

7. He regarded Albania, a fraternal socialist country, as 
his sworn enemy, devising every possible means to injure and 
undermine it, and only wishing he could devour it in one gulp. 
He brazenly broke off all economic and diplomatic relations 
with Albania, arbitrarily deprived it of its legitimate rights 
as a member state in the Warsaw Treaty Organization and in 
the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance, and publicly called 
for the overthrow of its Party and state leadership. 

8. He nourished an inveterate hatred for the Communist 
Party of China which upholds Marxism-Leninism and a rev- 
olutionary line, because the Chinese Communist Party was a 
great obstacle to his effort to press on with revisionism and 
capitulationism. He spread innumerable rumours and slanders 
against the Chinese Communist Party and Comrade Mao-Tse- 
tung and resorted to every kind of baseness in his futile at- 
tempt to subvert socialist China. He perfidiously tore up 
several hundred agreements and contracts and arbitrarily 
withdrew more than one thousand Soviet experts working in 
China. He engineered border disputes between China and the 
Soviet Union and even conducted large-scale subversive 
activities in Sinkiang. He backed the reactionaries of India in 
their armed attacks on socialist China and, together with the 

487 



United States, incited and helped them to perpetrate armed 
provocations against China by giving them military aid. 

9. In flagrant violation of the principles guiding relations 
among the fraternal countries, he encroached upon their in- 
dependence and sovereignty and wilfully interfered in their 
internal affairs. In the name of "mutual economic assistance", 
he opposed the independent development of the economies of 
fraternal countries and forced them to become a source of 
raw materials and an outlet for finished goods, thus reducing 
their industries to appendages. He bragged that these were 
all new theories and doctrines of his own invention, but in fact 
they were the jungle law of the capitalist world which he 
applied to relations among socialist countries, taking the Com- 
mon Market of the monopoly capitalist blocs as his model. 

10. In complete violation of the principles guiding rela- 
tions among fraternal Parties, he resorted to all sorts of 
schemes to carry out subversive and disruptive activities 
against them. Not only did he use the sessions of the Central 
Committee and Congress of his own Party as well as the 
Congresses of some fraternal Parties to launch overt large- 
scale unbridled attacks on the fraternal Parties which uphold 
Marxism-Leninism, but in the case of many fraternal Parties 
he shamelessly bought over political degenerates, renegades 
and turncoats to support his revisionist line, to attack and 
even illegally expel Marxist-Leninists from these Parties, thus 
creating splits without considering the consequences. 

11. He wantonly violated the principle of reaching unanim- 
ity through consultation among fraternal Parties and, play- 
ing the "patriarchal father Party" role, he wilfully decided 
to convene an illegal international meeting of the fraternal 
Parties. In the notice dated July 30, 1964, he ordered that a 
meeting of the so-called drafting committee of the twenty-six 
fraternal Parties be held on December 15 this year, so as to 
create an open split in the international communist movement. 

12. To cater to the needs of the imperialists and the 
domestic forces of capitalism, he pursued a series of revisionist 

488 



policies leading back to capitalism. Under the signboard of 
the "state of the whole people", he abolished the dictatorship 
of the proletariat; under the signboard of the "party of the 
entire people", he altered the proletarian character of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and divided the Party 
into an "industrial" and an "agricultural" Party in contraven- 
tion of the Marxist-Leninist principle of Party organization. 
Under the signboard of "full-scale communist construction" 
he tried in a thousand and one ways to switch back to the old 
path of capitalism the world's first socialist state which the 
Soviet people under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin had 
created by their sweat and blood. His blind direction of So- 
viet agriculture and industry wrought great havoc with the 
Soviet national economy and brought great difficulties to the 
life of the Soviet people. 

Everything Khrushchov did over the last eleven years proves 
that the policy he pursued was one of alliance with imperial- 
ism against socialism, alliance with the United States against 
China, alliance with the reactionaries everywhere against the 
national liberation movements and the people's revolutions, 
and alliance with the Tito clique and renegades of all descrip- 
tions against all Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties and all 
revolutionaries fighting imperialism. This policy of Khrush- 
chov's has jeopardized the basic interests of the Soviet people, 
the people of the countries of the socialist camp and the rev- 
olutionary people all over the world. 

Such are the so-called meritorious deeds of Khrushchov. 

The downfall of a fellow like Khrushchov is certainly not 
due to old age or ill health, nor is it merely due to mistakes 
in his methods of work and style of leadership. Khrushchov's 
downfall is the result of the revisionist general line and the 
many erroneous policies he pursued at home and abroad. 

Khrushchov considered the masses of the people as simply 
beneath his notice, thinking that he could manipulate the 
destiny of the Soviet people at his own sweet will and that 
the "heads" of the two great powers, the Soviet Union and 

489 



the United States, could settle the destiny of the people of 
all countries. To him, the people were nothing but fools 
and he alone was the "hero" making history. He vainly tried 
to force the Soviet people and the people of other countries 
to prostrate themselves under his revisionist baton. Thus he 
placed himself in direct opposition to the Soviet people, to the 
people of the countries of the socialist camp and to the pro- 
letariat and revolutionary people of the whole world, and got 
himself into an impasse — he was deserted by his own fol- 
lowers and could not extricate himself from internal and ex- 
ternal difficulties. He put the noose around his own neck — 
dug his own grave. 

History has witnessed many buffoons who cherished the 
idle hope of turning back the tide of history, but they all 
came to an ignominious end. Countless instances have dem- 
onstrated that the evil-doer who goes counter to the needs 
of social development and the will of the people can only end 
up as a ridiculous good-for-nothing, no matter what kind of 
"hero" he may have been, and no matter how arrogant. To 
start with the aim of doing harm to others only to end up by 
ruining oneself — such is the general law governing these 
people. 

"Personages" such as Bakunin in the period of the First 
International were arrogant anti-Marxist "heroes" in their 
day, but they were soon relegated to the garbage-heap of 
history. Anti-Marxist "heroes" like Bernstein and Kautsky in 
the period of the Second International were once "formidable 
giants" entrenched in leading positions, but in the end history 
wrote them down as notorious renegades. Trotsky, the ring- 
leader of the opposition faction, decked himself out as a "hero" 
after Lenin's death, but facts confirmed the correctness of 
Stalin's remark: ". . . he resembles an actor rather than a 
hero; and an actor should not be confused with a hero under 
any circumstances." 

"But progress is the eternal law of man's world." History 
has taught us that whoever wants to stop the wheel of history 

490 



will be ground to dust. As Comrade Mao Tse-tung has re- 
peatedly pointed out, imperialism and all reactionaries are 
paper tigers, and the revisionists are too. However rampant 
and overbearing they may be, "heroes" representing reac- 
tionary classes and reactionary forces are actually paper tigers, 
powerful only in appearance; they are only fleeting transients 
soon to be overwhelmed by the surging waves of history. 
Khrushchov is no exception. Just think of his inordinate 
arrogance in the days when he viciously attacked Stalin and 
Marxism-Leninism at the 20th and 22nd Congresses, and when 
at the Bucharest meeting he launched his surprise attack on 
the Chinese Communist Party which upholds Marxism- 
Leninism. But it did not take long for this anti-Soviet, anti- 
Communist and anti-Chinese "hero" to meet the same fate as 
his revisionist predecessors. However much people reasoned 
with him and asked him to return to the fold, he paid not the 
slightest heed and finally plunged to his doom. 

Khrushchov has fallen and the revisionist line he enthusias- 
tically pursued is discredited, but Marxism-Leninism will con- 
tinue to overcome the revisionist trend and forge ahead, and 
the revolutionary movement of the people of all countries will 
continue to sweep away the obstacles in its path and surge 
forward. 

Nevertheless, the course of history will continue to be 
tortuous. Although Khrushchov has fallen, his supporters — 
the U.S. imperialists, the reactionaries and the modern re- 
visionists — will not resign themselves to this failure. These 
ogres are continuing to pray for Khrushchov and are 
trying to "resurrect" him with their incantations, vociferously 
proclaiming his "contributions" and "meritorious deeds" in 
the hope that events will develop along the lines prescribed 
by Khrushchov, so that "Khrushchevism without Khrushchev" 
may prevail. It can be asserted categorically that theirs is a 
blind alley. 

Different ideological trends and their representatives in- 
variably strive to take the stage and perform It is entirely up 

491 



to them to decide which direction they will take. But there 
is one point on which we have not the slightest doubt. History 
will develop in accordance with the laws discovered by Marx- 
ism-Leninism; it will march forward along the road of the 
October Revolution. Beyond all doubt, the great Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union and the great Soviet people, with 
their revolutionary traditions, are fully capable of making new 
contributions in safeguarding the great socialist achievements, 
the lofty prestige of the first socialist power founded by Lenin, 
the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the victorious advance 
of the revolutionary cause of the proletariat. 

Let the international communist movement unite on the 
basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism! 



APPENDICIES 



THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF 

THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE 

OF THE CPC 

(March 30, 1963) 

March 30, 1963 
The Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of China 

Dear Comrades, 

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union notes with satisfaction that our proposals on 
measures aimed at strengthening unity and solidarity in the 
ranks of the communist movement have met with a favourable 
response on the part of the Central Committee of the Com- 
munist Party of China. We welcome your agreement to the 
holding of a meeting between representatives of the CPSU and 
CPC. This meeting is called upon to play an important part in 
creating a favourable atmosphere in relations between the fra- 
ternal Parties and in smoothing out the differences which have 
arisen in recent times in the world communist movement. We 
would like to hope that as a result of this meeting it will be 
possible to carry out a number of constructive measures to sur- 
mount existing difficulties. 

In its letter the CPC Central Committee invites Comrade 
N. S. Khrushchov to visit Peking en route to Cambodia. The 
CPSU Central Committee and Comrade N. S. Khrushchov ex- 
press gratitude for this invitation. Comrade N. S. Khrushchov 
would with great pleasure visit the People's Republic of China, 
and meet the leadership of the Communist Party of China to 
exchange views on urgent questions of the international situa- 

495 



tion and of the communist movement with the object of achiev- 
ing a common understanding of our tasks and strengthening 
solidarity between our Parties. However, it is not in fact 
planned that Comrade N. S. Khrushchov will make a tour of 
Cambodia as you mention in your letter. As we all know, in 
conformity with a decision passed by our leading bodies on 
February 12, 1963, Comrade L. I. Brezhnev, President of the 
Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, will travel to Cam- 
bodia, as the Cambodian Government has already been noti- 
fied and as has been announced in the press. Comrade N. S. 
Khrushchov, who has already visited the People's Republic of 
China three times, does not lose hope of availing himself of 
your kind invitation in the future to visit China and meet the 
Chinese comrades. 

We remember that during his stay in Moscow in 1957 Com- 
rade Mao Tse-tung said that he had only been in the USSR 
twice and had only visited Moscow and Leningrad. He ex- 
pressed the desire to visit the Soviet Union again to become 
better acquainted with our country. He said then that he would 
like to travel from the Far Eastern borders of our country to 
the western borders, and from the northern to the southern 
borders. We welcomed this desire of Comrade Mao Tse-tung. 

The CPSU Central Committee sent a letter to Comrade Mao 
Tse-tung on May 12, 1960, inviting him to come and spend a 
holiday in the USSR and familiarize himself with the life of 
the Soviet people. Unfortunately, Comrade Mao Tse-tung 
could not at that time avail himself of our invitation. The 
CPSU Central Committee would welcome a visit by Comrade 
Mao Tse-tung. The best time for such a visit would be the ap- 
proaching spring or summer, which are the good seasons of 
the year in our country. We are also ready at any other time to 
give a worthy reception to Comrade Mao Tse-tung as a repre- 
sentative of a fraternal Party and of the fraternal Chinese 
people. In this tour of our country, Comrade Mao Tse-tung 
would not, of course, be alone. Comrades from the leadership 
of our Party would go with him and it would be a fine op- 

496 



portunity for an exchange of opinion on different questions. 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung would be able to see how the Soviet 
people are working, and what successes they have scored in 
the construction of communism and in the implementation of 
the Programme of our Party. 

If a visit by Comrade Mao Tse-tung to Moscow cannot take 
place at present, we are ready to accept your ideas about a top- 
level meeting between representatives of the CPSU and CPC 
in Moscow. We believe that a meeting of this kind could take 
place around May 15, 1963, if this date is acceptable to you. 

We are very pleased that the Chinese comrades, like our- 
selves, regard the forthcoming meeting of representatives of 
the CPC and the CPSU as a "necessary step in preparing for 
the meeting of representatives of Communist and Workers' 
Parties of all countries." Indeed, without violating the prin- 
ciple of equality and without infringing upon the interests of 
other fraternal Parties, this meeting must facilitate the better 
preparation and holding of the meeting. Without such a meet- 
ing, and without the ending of open polemics in the press and 
of criticism within the Party of other fraternal Parties, prep- 
aration for the meeting and the achievement of its main aim 
— the strengthening of the unity of the international communist 
movement — would be difficult. Precisely for this reason the 
Central Committee of the CPSU, while agreeing with the pro- 
posals made by the Vietnamese, Indonesian, British, Swedish 
and other comrades at the beginning of 1962 regarding the 
convocation of a meeting of fraternal Parties of all countries, 
at the same time stressed the need for taking such measures as 
would create a favourable atmosphere for the work of the world 
communist forum. 

In its letter of February 22, 1962, the Central Committee of 
the CPSU urged that "unnecessary arguments be stopped re- 
garding questions on which we have different opinions, that 
public statements capable of aggravating rather than smooth- 
ing out our differences be given up." In the letter to the Cen- 
tral Committee of the CPC of May 31, 1962, we wrote: 

497 



As you are well aware, our Party has always come out and 
still comes out for collective discussion of vital problems of 
the world communist movement. The Central Committee of 
the CPSU was the initiator of the meetings of fraternal Par- 
ties in 1957 and 1960. In both cases these meetings were 
connected with serious changes in the international situation 
and the need for working out corresponding tactics in the 
communist movement. Now too we fully support the pro- 
posal for the convocation of a meeting of all the fraternal 
Parties. 

We considered it would be useful in the preparations for such 
a meeting that the fraternal Parties could thoroughly and pro- 
foundly analyse the new phenomena in international affairs 
and their own activity in carrying out the collective decisions 
of our movement. The Central Committee of the CPSU dis- 
played concern, perfectly understandable to all Communists, 
that the meeting should not aggravate the differences but 
do as much as possible to overcome them. 

In their pronouncements many of the leaders of fraternal 
Parties have recently been justly expressing the same point of 
view on the necessity of taking, before the meeting, a number 
of steps to create a normal situation in the communist move- 
ment and to place conflicts of opinions within the permissible 
bounds of a comradely Party discussion. Now you also agree 
with this, as is seen from your letter, and it can be said that 
certain progress has been made in the preparation of the 
forthcoming meeting. 

It goes without saying that when our two Parties are discuss- 
ing questions concerning all fraternal Parties, the discussion 
can only be of a preliminary nature. The 1957 and 1960 Meet- 
ings have shown that the elaboration of the policy of the in- 
ternational communist movement can be successful only if all 
fraternal Parties collectively take part in it and if due con- 
sideration is given to the extensive experience of all its com- 
ponent detachments. 

498 



We have attentively studied your views concerning the range 
of questions which could be discussed at the meeting of repre- 
sentatives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the 
Communist Party of China. These are important questions, 
and we are ready to discuss them. 

In our turn, we would like to dwell in this letter on some 
questions of principle, which, in our opinion, are the centre of 
attention of the fraternal Parties and their struggle for our 
common cause. We do not mean, of course, an exhaustive 
statement of our views on these questions. We only wish to 
note that which is of paramount importance, by which we are 
guided in our policy in the international arena and in our 
relations with fraternal Parties. 

We hope that this statement of our views will help to define 
the range of questions requiring an exchange of opinions at a 
bilateral meeting and will contribute to overcoming the ex- 
isting differences. We are doing this so as to stress once again 
our determination to uphold firmly and consistently the 
ideological standpoint of the entire world communist move- 
ment, its general line as expressed in the Declaration and 
the Statement. 

During the time that has passed since the adoption of the 
Statement, experience has not only not invalidated any of its 
main conclusions, but has, on the contrary, fully confirmed the 
correctness of the course taken by the world communist move- 
ment, as worked out jointly through generalization of present- 
day experience and the creative development of Marxism- 
Leninism. 

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union proceeds from the 
basis that our epoch, whose main content is the transition from 
capitalism to socialism, initiated by the Great October Socialist 
Revolution, is an epoch of struggle between two opposed social 
systems, an epoch of socialist revolutions and national-libera- 
tion revolutions, an epoch of the collapse of imperialism, of 
the abolition of the colonial system, an epoch of transition to 

499 



socialism by ever more nations, of the triumph of socialism and 
communism on a world scale. 

The situation that has developed in the world and the 
changes in the development of the class forces in the inter- 
national arena which opened up new opportunities for our 
movement demanded that a general line be worked out for 
the world communist movement, a general line in conformity 
with its basic tasks at the present stage. 

After the Second World War a number of countries in 
Europe took the road of socialism, a socialist revolution 
triumphed in China and other Asian countries, and a world 
socialist system was formed. The new system grew strong in 
the countries of People's Democracy and was able to ensure 
a rapid rate of economic, political and cultural development 
in the countries following the road of socialism. The socialist 
community was closely united politically and militarily. 
Thanks to the achievements of the Soviet Union and other 
fraternal countries the correlation of forces in the world 
changed substantially in favour of socialism, and to the 
detriment of imperialism. An important part in this respect 
was played by the ending of America's monopoly of atomic 
and hydrogen weapons and by the creation of a mighty war 
potential by the Soviet Union. 

The formation of the world socialist system is a historic 
achievement of the international working class and of all the 
working people. This achievement is the incarnation of man- 
kind's dreams of a new society. The growth of production and 
the vast achievements of science and engineering in the social- 
ist countries have helped to provide the socialist community 
with an economic and military might that reliably defends the 
gains of socialism and also serves as a mighty mainstay of 
peace and security for the peoples of the world. 

The radical change in the correlation of forces is also con- 
nected with a further intensification of the general crisis of 
capitalism, the intensification of all its contradictions. After 
the end of the Second World War a change occurred in the 

500 



distribution of forces within the imperialist camp. Following 
the economic centre, the political and military centres of im- 
perialism also shifted from Europe to the United States of 
America. The monopolist bourgeoisie of the U.S.A. has be- 
come the main citadel of international reaction, and has as- 
sumed the role of the saviour of capitalism. The American im- 
perialists are now performing the functions of an international 
gendarme. Using the policy of military blocs, the American 
imperialists endeavour to subordinate to their rule other capi- 
talist states. This evokes opposition to the United States on the 
part of France, West Germany, Japan and other major capital- 
ist states. The recovery of the economy of the capitalist coun- 
tries which had suffered in the world war, and their rate of 
development, more rapid than in the United States, intensify 
the desire of a number of European countries to free them- 
selves from the American diktat. All this leads to the aggrava- 
tion of existing centres of imperialist competition and con- 
flicts, and the appearance of new ones and weakens the 
capitalist system on the whole. 

The anti-popular and rapacious nature of imperialism has 
not changed, but with the formation of the world socialist 
system and the growth of its economic and military might the 
ability of imperialism to influence the course of historical de- 
velopment has been noticeably narrowed, while the forms and 
methods of its struggle against the socialist countries and the 
world revolutionary and national-liberation movement have 
changed. The imperialists are frightened by the tempestuous 
growth of the forces of socialism and the national-liberation 
movement, they unite their forces, make feverish efforts to 
continue the struggle for their exploiting aims, and everywhere 
strive to undermine the positions of the socialist countries and 
the national-liberation movement, and to weaken their in- 
fluence. 

It is perfectly obvious that in our age the main content and 
the chief trends of the historical development of human society 
are no longer determined by imperialism but by the world 

501 



socialist system by all the progressive forces struggling against 
imperialism for the reorganization of society along socialist 
a lines. The contradiction between capitalism and socialism is 
the chief contradiction of our epoch. On the outcome of the 
struggle of the two world systems the destinies of peace, de- 
mocracy and socialism depend to a decisive extent. And the 
correlation of forces in the world arena is changing all the 
time in favour of socialism. 

The struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America 
for their national and social liberation, and the successes al- 
ready achieved in this field, the growing struggle of the work- 
ing class, of all the working people of the capitalist countries 
against the monopolies and against exploitation, in the interests 
of social progress, are of the greatest importance for the 
destinies of the historical development of mankind. Socialist 
revolutions, national-liberation anti-imperialist and anti- 
colonial revolutions, people's democratic revolutions, extensive 
peasant movements, the struggle of the masses for the 
overthrow of fascist and other tyrannical regimes, general 
democratic movements against national oppression — in our 
time all these merge into a single world revolutionary stream 
undermining and destroying capitalism. 

Working out its policy in conformity with the new condi- 
tions, the world communist movement could not fail to take 
into account quite seriously also such an important factor as 
the radical qualitative change in the military-technical means 
of waging war resulting from the emergence and stockpiling 
of thermo-nuclear weapons possessing unprecedented destruc- 
tive force. Until disarmament is effected the socialist com- 
munity must always maintain superiority over the imperialists 
in their armed forces. We shall never allow the imperialists to 
forget that should they unleash a war with the aim of decid- 
ing by force of arms whether mankind must develop along the 
road of capitalism or of socialism, it will be the last war, the 
one in which imperialism will be finally routed. 

502 



Under present-day conditions it is the duty of all champions 
of peace and socialism to use to the utmost the existing favour- 
able opportunities for the victory of socialism, and not to 
allow imperialism to unleash a world war. 

The correct analysis of the alignment of class forces in the 
world arena, and the correct Marxist-Leninist policy elaborated 
at the Moscow Meetings, made it possible for the fraternal Par- 
ties to gain major successes in developing the world socialist 
system, and facilitated the growth of the class revolutionary 
struggle in the capitalist countries and of the national-libera- 
tion movement. 

The socialist system is exerting an ever-growing influence 
on the course of world development. The entire world revolu- 
tionary process is today developing under the direct influence 
of the great example provided by the new life in the countries 
of socialism. The more successfully the ideas of communism 
make their way to the minds and hearts of the general masses, 
the greater and more significant are our achievements in the 
building of socialism and communism. It is, therefore, clear 
that he who wants to bring closer the victory of socialism 
throughout the entire world should, in the first place, show 
concern for strengthening the great socialist community and 
its economic might, should seek to raise the standard of living 
of its peoples, develop science, engineering and culture, con- 
solidate its unity and solidarity and the growth of its interna- 
tional authority. The Statement of the Moscow Meeting places 
the responsibility to the international working-class movement 
for the successful building of socialism and communism on 
the Marxist-Leninist Parties and the peoples of the socialist 
countries. 

Tirelessly strengthening the world socialist system, the 
fraternal Parties and peoples of our countries make their con- 
tribution to the great cause of the struggle of the international 
working class, of all the working people, of the entire libera- 
tion movement for solving the basic problems of the day in 
the interests of peace, democracy and socialism. 

503 



The present correlation of forces in the world arena gave 
the socialist countries, together with all peace-loving forces, 
the opportunity of envisaging as an entirely feasible task for 
the first time in history that of averting a new world war and 
of ensuring peace and security of the peoples. 

The years that have passed since the adoption of this State- 
ment have fully corroborated the correctness of this thesis. 
The failure of the aggressive forces to push mankind over the 
abyss of a destructive thermo-nuclear war is a highly impor- 
tant result of the strengthening of the might of the socialist 
countries, of the peace-loving foreign policy which they un- 
swervingly pursue and which is increasingly winning recogni- 
tion and support among hundreds of millions of people and 
gaining the upper hand over the imperialist policy of aggres- 
sion and war. 

No Marxist doubts that imperialism, losing one position 
after another, is trying by every means to preserve its domina- 
tion over peoples and to regain its lost positions. At present 
the greatest conspiracy ever of the international imperialists 
is taking place against the countries of socialism and the world 
movement of liberation. Of course, there is no guarantee that 
the imperialists will not try to unleash a world war. The 
Communists should clearly see this danger. 

But the position of the aggressor under present-day con- 
ditions radically differs from his position before the Second 
World War and, even more, before the First World War. In 
the past, wars usually ended with some capitalist countries 
defeating others, but the vanquished continued to live, regain- 
ed their strength after a time, and even proved able to start 
renewed aggression, as is shown, in particular, by the example 
of Germany. A thermo-nuclear war does not offer such a 
prospect to any aggressor, and the imperialists are compelled 
to reckon with this. Fear of a retaliatory blow, fear of ret- 
ribution, keeps them from letting loose a world war. The 
socialist community has become so strong that imperialism can 
no longer impose its conditions on the peoples and dictate its 

504 



will as before. This is a historic gain by the international 
working class and the peoples of all countries. 

By virtue of its predatory nature imperialism cannot get 
rid of the desire to solve contradictions in the international 
arena by means of war. But on the other hand it cannot un- 
leash a world thermo-nuclear war without realizing that it 
will thereby place itself in danger of being destroyed. 

A world war, such as imperialism threatens mankind with, 
is not fatally inevitable. With the balance of forces increas- 
ingly tipping in favour of socialism and against imperialism, 
and with the forces of peace increasingly gaining weight over 
the forces of war, it will become really possible to rule out the 
possibility of world war from the life of society even before 
socialism fully triumphs on earth, with capitalism still existing 
in a part of the world. 

Of course, to prevent such a war it is necessary to continue 
strengthening the socialist system to the utmost and to rally 
all the forces of the international working-class and the 
national-liberation movement, to rally all democratic forces. 
Those who prize the interests of socialism and the interests of 
peace must do everything to frustrate the criminal designs of 
world reaction and to prevent it from unleashing a thermo- 
nuclear war and dragging hundreds of millions of people down 
into the grave with it. A sober appraisal of the inevitable 
consequences that a thermo-nuclear war would have for the 
whole of mankind and for the cause of socialism sets before 
Marxist-Leninists the need to do everything in our power to 
prevent a new world conflict. 

The CPSU Central Committee firmly abides by the thesis 
of the 1960 Statement that "In a world divided into two 
systems, the only correct and reasonable principle of interna- 
tional relations is the principle of peaceful coexistence of states 
with different social systems advanced by V. I. Lenin and 
further elaborated in the Moscow Declaration and Peace Mani- 
festo of 1957, in the decisions of the 20th and 21st Congresses 

505 



of the CPSU, and in the documents of other Communist and 
Workers' Parties." 

Our Party, which the great Lenin educated in the spirit of 
relentless struggle against imperialism keeps in mind Lenin's 
warning that moribund capitalism is still able to cause 
humanity untold calamities. The Soviet Union is doing every- 
thing to boost its economy and to improve its defences on this 
basis; it is building up its armed might and maintaining its 
armed forces in a state of constant readiness. However, we 
have employed and will continue to employ our country's in- 
creasing might not to threaten anyone or to fan war passions, 
but to consolidate peace, prevent another world war, and de- 
fend our own country and the other socialist countries. 

The policy of peaceful coexistence accords with the vital 
interests of all the peoples; it serves to strengthen the positions 
of socialism, to help the international influence of the socialist 
countries, and to increase the authority and influence of the 
Communists. 

Peaceful coexistence does not imply conciliation between 
socialist and bourgeois ideologies. That policy would spell 
abandonment of Marxism-Leninism and obstruction of the 
building of socialism. Bourgeois ideology is a sort of Trojan 
horse, which imperialism is trying to sneak into the ranks of 
the communist and working-class movement. The peaceful 
coexistence of states with different social systems presupposes 
an unremitting ideological, political and economic struggle 
between the two social systems, and the class struggle of 
the working people inside the countries of the capitalist 
system, including armed struggle when the peoples find that 
necessary, and the steady advance of the national-liberation 
movement among the peoples of the colonial and dependent 
countries. 

The facts go to show that efforts to prevent a world war in 
no way weaken the forces of the world communist and 
national-liberation movements but on the contrary rally the 
broadest masses to the Communists. It was precisely in con- 

506 



ditions of peaceful coexistence between states with different 
social systems that the socialist revolution triumphed on 
Cuba, that the Algerian people gained national independence, 
that more than 40 countries won national independence, 
that the fraternal Parties grew in number and strength, 
and that the influence of the world communist movement in- 
creased. 

Availing themselves of the conditions of peaceful coex- 
istence, the socialist countries are scoring more and more vic- 
tories in the economic competition with capitalism. Our 
adversaries realize that it is difficult for them to count on 
winning the competition against us. They are unable to keep 
up with the rapid economic advance of the socialist countries; 
they are powerless in the face of the appeal that the example 
of the socialist countries makes to the peoples under capital- 
ism's yoke. 

As the economy of the socialist commonwealth advances, 
the advantages and superiority of socialism, and the greater 
opportunities of the working people to obtain material and 
spiritual riches, as compared to capitalism, will display them- 
selves more and more vividly. The rising standards of living 
the socialist countries are a great magnet for the working 
class of all the capitalist countries. The achievements of the 
socialist commonwealth will constitute a kind of catalyst, a 
revolutionizing factor in broadening the class struggle in the 
capitalist countries and enabling the working class to triumph 
over capitalism. 

The peoples embarking on socialism inherit from the past 
economies and cultures at different levels. Regardless of this, 
however, socialism awakens mighty productive forces — as 
exemplified by the Soviet Union and the People's Democra- 
cies. The Soviet Union has already outpaced the leading 
capitalist countries of Europe in economic development and 
has taken second place in the world; the time is not far off 
when it will take first place in the world. The other socialist 
countries have likewise gained great successes. The socialist 

507 



system is so progressive by nature that it enables the peoples 
to swiftly eliminate their backwardness, to catch up with the 
more highly-developed countries, and, marching in one rank 
with them, to fight for the building of communism. 

All this inspires the peoples, giving them the conviction 
that they can embark upon the road of socialism and score 
achievements, regardless of their present level of historical 
development. The advance of the peoples to a new life is 
facilitated by their opportunity to select the best from the 
world's experience in building socialism, taking into account 
both the merits and the shortcomings in the practices of 
socialist construction. 

The faster the productive forces of the socialist countries 
develop, the higher their economic potential will rise, and 
the stronger the influence of the socialist community will 
become on the rate and trend of the whole of historical 
development in the interests of peace and of the complete 
triumph of socialism. 

Our Party proceeds from the thesis that there are favourable 
international and internal conditions in the present epoch for 
more and more countries to go over to socialism. This is 
true of the developed capitalist countries as well as of the 
countries which have recently achieved national independence. 

The world revolutionary process is developing on an ever 
larger scale, embracing all continents. The struggle of the 
working class in the developed capitalist countries and the 
national-liberation movement are closely linked, and help one 
another. The course of social development has led to a 
situation in which the revolutionary struggle, in whichever 
country it takes place, is directed against the main common 
enemy, imperialism and the monopoly bourgeoisie. 

The Marxist-Leninist Parties throughout the world have a 
common ultimate aim, to mobilize all forces in the struggle 
for the winning of power by the workers and the labouring 
peasantry, and to build socialism and communism. In drawing 
up the tactical policy for their struggle, every Communist 

508 



Party must take into account the experience of the entire 
world communist movement, must take into consideration 
those interests, aims and tasks set by our movement as a 
whole, its general line at the present time. 

But at the same time, the working out of forms and methods 
of fighting for socialism in each separate country is the internal 
affair of the working class of that country and of its communist 
vanguard. No other fraternal Party, whatever its membership, 
experience and authority, can lay down the tactics, forms 
and methods of the revolutionary struggle in other countries. 
Revolution is the cause of the masses themselves. An accurate 
analysis of the actual situation and a correct estimation of 
the correlation of forces are among the most important con- 
ditions of a revolution. The enthusiasm of the revolutionary 
masses in the struggle for the victory of a socialist revolution 
cannot be kept back when objective and subjective conditions 
are ripe. It would be tantamount to death. But a revolution 
cannot be artificially instigated if conditions for it are not yet 
ripe. A premature uprising, as the experience of the revolu- 
tionary class struggle teaches, is doomed to failure. Com- 
munists rally the working people under the red banner in 
order to win in the struggle for a better life on earth, and 
not to perish, even though heroically. Heroism and self- 
sacrifice, necessary in revolutionary battles, are of no use by 
themselves, but only for the victory of the great ideas of 
socialism. 

The CPSU has always hailed and will continue to hail the 
revolutionary working class and the working people of any 
country who, headed by their communist vanguard, make 
skilful use of the revolutionary situation to inflict a crushing 
blow against the class enemy and to establish a new social 
system. 

The tactics and policy of the Communist Parties in the 
capitalist countries have in common substantial features con- 
nected with the present stage of the general crisis of capitalism 
and the correlation of forces that has developed in the inter- 

509 



national arena. The development of state-monopoly capitalism 
has, besides aggravating the contradictions of the capitalist 
society which appeared before, also given birth to new con- 
tradictions. State-monopoly capitalism has led to a still greater 
narrowing of the social base of imperialism within a country, 
and to the concentration of power in the hands of a small 
group of the strongest monopolists. This gives rise, on the 
other hand, to a joint anti-monopoly movement embracing the 
working class, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, the working 
intellectuals and certain other sections of capitalist society 
interested in freeing themselves from the sway of the 
monopolies and from exploitation, and interested in changing 
over to socialism. 

Our time is characterized by a sharp growth in the 
significance of democratic movements — the struggle for 
world peace, for the prevention of a world thermo-nuclear 
catastrophe, for the preservation of national sovereignty; 
movements in defence of democracy, against the onslaught 
of fascism, for the introduction of agrarian transformations, 
the humanistic movement in defence of culture, and others. 

Our Party fully adheres to Leninist principles and to the 
principles expressed in the Statement, in saying that socialist 
revolution is not necessarily connected with war. If world 
wars bring about triumphant revolutions, revolutions are 
nevertheless entirely possible without wars. 

If Communists were to start tying up the victory of the 
socialist revolution with world war, this would not evoke any 
sympathy for socialism, but would drive the masses away 
from it. With modern means of warfare having such terrible 
destructive consequences, an appeal like this would only play 
into the hands of our enemies. 

The working class and its vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist 
Parties, endeavour to carry out socialist revolutions in a peace- 
ful way without civil war. The realization of such a possibility 
is in keeping with the interests of the working class and all 
the people, and with the national interests of the country. At 

510 



the same time the choice pf the means of developing the 
revolution depends not only on the working class. If the 
exploiting classes resort to violence against the people, the 
working class will be forced to use non-peaceful means of 
seizing power. Everything depends on the particular conditions 
and on the distribution of class forces within the country 
and in the world arena. 

Naturally, no matter what means are used for the transition 
from capitalism to socialism, such a transition is possible only 
by means of a socialist revolution and of the dictatorship of 
the proletariat in various forms. Appreciating highly the 
selfless struggle of the working class headed by the Com- 
munists in the capitalist countries, the CPSU considers it its 
duty to render them every kind of aid and support. 

Our Party regards the national-liberation movement as an 
integral part of the world revolutionary process, as a mighty 
force destroying the front of imperialism. The peoples of the 
former colonies are today rising to full stature as independent 
creators of history, and are seeking ways to promote their 
national economy and culture. The growth of the forces of 
the socialist system actively helps the liberation of the 
oppressed peoples, their achievement of economic indepen- 
dence, the further development and expansion of the national- 
liberation movement, and the peoples' struggle against all 
forms of old and new colonialism. 

The national-liberation movement has entered the final stage 
of the abolition of colonial regimes. The time is not far off 
when all the peoples as yet living under the yoke of the 
colonialists will win freedom and independence. The freed 
peoples are now faced with the problem of consolidating 
political independence, overcoming economic and cultural 
backwardness and putting an end to all forms of dependence 
upon imperialism. 

The countries that have thrown off the colonial yoke carry 
out the vital tasks of national resurgence successfully only in 
vigorous struggle against imperialism and the remnants of 

511 



feudalism, by uniting all the patriotic forces of the nation in 
a single national front — the working class, the peasantry, 
the national bourgeoisie and the democratic intellectuals. 

The peoples who are fighting for their national liberation 
and have already won political independence have ceased, or 
are ceasing, to serve as a reserve for imperialism; with the 
support of the socialist states and of all progressive forces 
they are more and more frequently inflicting defeats upon 
the imperialist powers and coalitions. 

The young national states are developing at a time when 
there is competition between the two world social systems. 
This circumstance has the strongest influence upon their 
political and economic development, upon the choice of the 
roads they will follow in the future. The states that have 
recently achieved their national liberation belong neither to 
the system of socialist states nor to the system of capitalist 
states, but the overwhelming majority of them have not yet 
broken away from the orbit of the world capitalist economy, 
although they hold a special place there. This part of the 
world is still exploited by the capitalist monopolies. 

Now when political independence has been won, the struggle 
of the young sovereign states against imperialism, for their 
ultimate national revival, for economic independence, comes 
to the forefront. The achievement of complete independence 
by the developing countries would mean a further serious 
weakening of imperialism, for then the entire present system 
of the predatory, unequal international division of labour 
would be destroyed, and the foundation of the economic 
exploitation of the "world countryside" by the capitalist 
monopolies would be undermined. The development of inde- 
pendent national economies in the developing countries relying 
upon the effective assistance of the socialist system will deal 
a further heavy blow against imperialism. 

In the struggle for the attainment and consolidation of 
independence it is necessary to muster the whole of a nation's 
forces in readiness to fight against imperialism. In an 

512 



endeavour to strengthen its dominant position after the 
attainment of independence, the right-wing national bour- 
geoisie sometimes succeeds in establishing reactionary political 
regimes for a time, and starts persecuting Communists and 
other democrats. However, such regimes are short-lived for 
the simple reason that they obstruct progress and the solution 
of vital national problems — primarily the attainment of 
economic independence and the development of productive 
forces. That is why, in spite of the active support of the 
imperialists, these regimes will be overthrown as a result of 
the struggle of the masses. 

The CPSU regards fraternal alliance with the peoples who 
have shaken off the colonial yoke and with the peoples of 
semi-colonial states as one of the corner-stones of its inter- 
national policy. Our Party considers it its international duty 
to help the peoples who have taken the road of winning and 
consolidating national independence, all the peoples fighting 
for the complete abolition of the colonial system. The Soviet 
Union has always supported the sacred wars of the peoples for 
freedom, and given every kind of moral, economic, military 
and political support to the national-liberation movement. 

The Soviet people gave great support to the Algerian people 
when they fought against the French colonialists. When the 
Yemeni people rose up in revolt against slavery in their 
country, we were the first to offer them a helping hand. We 
rendered various kinds of aid to the Indonesian people in their 
struggle for the liberation of West Irian, against the Dutch 
imperialists who got their support from the U.S. imperialists. 
We hail the struggle of the Indonesian people for the liberation 
of Northern Kalimantan. 

Colonialists, both old and new, are busy weaving intrigues 
and plots against the liberation movement of the peoples of 
Southeast Asia. Our sympathies and support are invariably 
with those who fight for national freedom and independence. 
We are deeply convinced that, in spite of all the efforts of 
the American imperialists and their puppets, the peoples of 

513 



South Vietnam and South Korea will be victorious in their 
struggle and will achieve the reunification of their native 
lands. 

While being against the export of revolution, our Party 
has always done everything to prevent the export of counter- 
revolution. We are firmly convinced that the interconnection 
and unity of action of the three great revolutionary forces of 
our time — the peoples building socialism and communism, 
the international revolutionary working-class movement, and 
the national-liberation movement — are the foundation of the 
peoples' struggle against imperialism, and a guarantee of their 
victory. 

The entire course of world development in recent years has 
fully confirmed the correctness of the policy of the communist 
movement, which has yielded remarkable practical results. 
Thanks to the realization of this policy, the forces fighting 
against imperialism, for peace, national independence and 
socialism, have scored new successes. The CPSU considers it 
its duty consistently and steadfastly to carry out this policy. 

We are firmly convinced that there are no grounds for a 
revision of this policy. 

Besides this, the CPSU Central Committee is of the opinion 
that it would be beneficial during the preparations for the 
meeting, as well as at the meeting of representatives of Com- 
munist and Workers' Parties, to exchange opinions on the new 
aspects with which life has in recent years enriched the policy 
of the world communist movement as laid down in the 
Declaration and Statement. 

In your letter, dear comrades, you justly note that the 
guarantee of all our achievements is the strengthening of the 
unity of the communist movement and the solidarity of the 
socialist countries. In recent time the CPSU has at its 
congresses and at international Communist meetings time and 
again expressed its conception of the principles concerning the 
relations between Marxist-Leninist Parties. We emphasized, 
for the whole world to see, that in the communist movement, 

514 



just as in the socialist community, all Communist and Workers' 
Parties, of all socialist countries have always been completely 
equal. In the communist movement there are no "superior" and 
"subordinate" Parties. And it could not be so. The domination 
of any party, or the manifestation of any hegemony whatso- 
ever, does not benefit the international communist and 
workers' movement; on the contrary, it can only do it harm. 
All Communist Parties are independent and equal. All bear 
responsibility for the destiny of the communist movement, 
for its victories and setbacks, all must build their relations on 
the basis of proletarian internationalism and mutual assistance. 

We also proceed from the basis that proletarian inter- 
nationalism places equal demands on all Parties, big and 
small, but makes no exceptions for anyone. All fraternal 
Parties must show equal concern that their activities be based 
on Marxist-Leninist principles, in accordance with the interests 
of strengthening the unity of the socialist countries and of 
the entire world communist and workers' movement. 

The formation and development of the world socialist system 
give special significance to the question of correct relations 
between Marxist-Leninist Parties. Communist and Workers' 
Parties in the countries of socialism are ruling parties. They 
bear responsibility for the destiny of the states, for the destiny 
of their peoples. Under these conditions the violation of 
Marxist-Leninist principles in the relations between Parties 
can affect not only Party interests but the interests of the 
wide masses of the people. 

Guided by the supreme interests of our cause, the CPSU 
has eliminated the consequences of the Stalin personality cult, 
and done everything to restore in full the Leninist principles 
of equality in the relations between the fraternal Parties and 
respect for the sovereignty of socialist countries. This has 
played a large and positive role in strengthening the unity 
of the entire socialist community. A favourable situation has 
been created for the strengthening of our friendship on the 
basis of equality, respect for the sovereignty of each state, 

515 



mutual assistance and comradely co-operation, voluntary fulfil- 
ment of international duty by each country. At the same 
time, we should like to emphasize that socialist equality not 
only means having equal rights to take part in working 
out collectively the common policy but also entails equal 
responsibilities for the fraternal Parties of socialist countries 
for the destinies of the entire community. 

The Statement of the Moscow Meeting of the Fraternal 
Parties stressed the need for the closest alliance between 
countries breaking away from capitalism, for the pooling of 
their efforts in the building of socialism and communism. 
National interests and the interests of the socialist system as 
a whole combine harmoniously. Life has proved convincingly 
that every country can best solve its national tasks only 
through the closest co-operation with the other socialist 
countries on the basis of genuine equality and mutual aid. 

Our unity, our well-concerted actions, do not arise 
spontaneously. They are dictated by objective necessity, they 
are the result of conscious activities, of the purposeful inter- 
nationalist policy of the Marxist-Leninist Parties and their 
tireless concern for the uniting of our ranks. 

We do not close our eyes to the fact that different inter- 
pretations of certain questions of internal construction and the 
international communist movement, different interpretations 
of the forms and methods of our co-operation may occur in 
the relations between socialist countries. This is possible, 
for the countries making up the world socialist system are at 
different stages in the construction of a new society, and their 
experience in developing relations with the outside world is 
not the same in all respects. One should not exclude the 
possibility, either, that differences may result from different 
approaches to the solution of some questions of Marxism- 
Leninism in individual fraternal Parties. To exaggerate the 
role of national, specific features may lead to a departure 
from Marxism-Leninism. To ignore national features may 

516 



lead to a breaking away from life and from the masses, and 
do harm to the cause of socialism. 

All this necessitates constant efforts to find ways and means 
to enable us to settle the differences arising, from positions 
of principle and with the least damage to our common cause. 

We Communists can argue between ourselves. But in all 
circumstances our sacred duty remains the education of the 
peoples of our countries in the spirit of deep solidarity with 
all the peoples of the socialist community. Communists must 
inculcate in the peoples not only love for their own country, 
but also love for the whole of the socialist community, for all 
peoples; they must foster in each man and woman living in 
any socialist country an understanding of their fraternal duty 
towards the working people of the world. Failure to do this 
means failure to follow the first rule of Communists, which 
requires the uniting of the Marxist-Leninist Parties and the 
peoples building socialism, the cherishing of our unity above 
all else. 

Ideological and tactical differences must in no circumstances 
be used to incite nationalist feelings and prejudices, mistrust 
and dissension between the socialist peoples. We declare with 
full responsibility that the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union has never taken and will never take a single step that 
could sow hostility among the peoples of our country towards 
the fraternal Chinese people or other peoples. On the contrary, 
in all circumstances our Party has steadily and consistently 
propagated the ideas of internationalism and warm friendship 
with the peoples of the socialist countries, and with all peoples 
of the world. We consider it important to stress this, and we 
hope that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of 
China shares this view. 

In the international communist, working-class and liberation 
movements it is necessary to unite all efforts, mobilizing the 
peoples for struggle against imperialism. The militant call 
"Workers of all countries, unite!" formulated by Marx and 
Engels means that at the basis of this unity lies anti-imperialist 

517 



class solidarity, and not any principle of nationality, colour 
or geographical location. The uniting of the masses in the 
struggle against imperialism solely on the basis of their belong- 
ing to a particular continent — whether Africa, Asia, Latin 
America or Europe — can be detrimental to the fighting 
peoples. This would be not uniting but in fact splitting the 
forces of the united anti-imperialist front. 

The strength of the world communist movement lies in its 
faithfulness to Marxism-Leninism and to proletarian inter- 
nationalism. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has 
fought and will continue to fight any departure from Marxism- 
Leninism and any opportunism. We firmly adhere to the 
principles of the Statement of 1960 indicating the necessity 
for a struggle on two fronts — against Right and "Left" 
opportunism. The Statement rightly says that the main danger 
in the world communist movement is revisionism, and at the 
same time points out the necessity for a resolute struggle 
against sectarianism and dogmatism, which can become the 
main danger at any stage in the development of separate 
Parties if not consistently combated. 

Motivated by the desire to consolidate the unity of the 
world communist movement on the basis of the principles of 
Marxism-Leninism, our Party will continue to fight resolutely 
against both right-wing and left-wing opportunism, which are 
today no less dangerous than revisionism. But while being 
implacable as regards fundamental questions of principle in 
the theory and tactics of the communist movement, while 
struggling against revisionism and sectarianism, we shall spare 
no effort to elucidate, by painstaking comradely discussion, 
questions on which there are different interpretations, so as 
to clear away all extraneous obstacles interfering with our 
unity. In so doing, we proceed from the premise that when 
criticizing any mistake relating to questions of the principles 
of Marxism-Leninism, the fraternal Parties, and also inter- 
national conferences of the communist movement, should set 
themselves the objective of pointing out the danger of such 

518 



mistakes and of helping to remedy them, and not of harping 
on these mistakes for all time. We are striving to facilitate 
the complete uniting of revolutionary forces, and not their 
disintegration or the amputation of one or another section in 
our movement. Naturally, Communists cannot allow conces- 
sions on points of principle in Marxist-Leninist theory. 

As an internationalist Party, the CPSU carefully studies 
the experience accumulated in the struggles of the Marxist- 
Leninist Parties in all countries. We greatly prize the struggle 
being waged by the working class and its revolutionary van- 
guard of Communist Parties in France, Italy, the U.S.A., 
Britain, the other capitalist countries, as well as the heroic 
struggle which the Communist Parties of Asian, African and 
Latin American countries are carrying on for national and 
social emancipation from the domination of the imperialist 
monopolies, colonialism and neo-colonialism. 

The Communist Parties have developed into influential 
national forces, into advanced detachments of fighters for the 
happiness of their peoples. No wonder the reactionaries are 
striking blow after blow at the Communists in their efforts 
to break their will. In their fight against the communist 
movement the reactionaries bring out the shop-soiled lie about 
the "hand of Moscow," claiming that the Communist Parties 
are not a national force but a vehicle for the policy of another 
country, the tool of another country. The imperialists are 
doing this with evil intent, in order to counter the mounting 
influence of the Communist Parties, in order to make the 
masses suspect them, in order to justify police persecution of 
the Communists. 

However, all honest-minded men and women know that 
the Communist Parties are the true upholders and champions 
of national interests, that they are staunch patriots who com- 
bine love for their country and proletarian internationalism 
in their struggle for the happiness of the people. The CPSU 
considers it its obligation to give every support to its brothers 

519 



in the heroic struggle they are waging in the capitalist 
countries, to strengthen international solidarity with them. 

These, in general outline, are some of our ideas on impor- 
tant contemporary questions of principle, on the strategy and 
tactics of the international communist movement, which we 
thought it necessary to touch upon in this letter. 

Being firmly convinced that the present policy of the inter- 
national communist movement, which found its expression in 
the Declaration and Statement of the fraternal Parties, is the 
only correct one, we believe that at the forthcoming meeting 
between the representatives of the CPSU and CPC it would 
be expedient to discuss the following most urgent problems: 

a. Questions concerning the struggle for the further 
strengthening of the might of the world socialist system and 
its transformation into the decisive factor in the development 
of human society, which is the main distinguishing feature 
of our era. We could jointly discuss how faster and better to 
secure a victory for the socialist countries in peaceful economic 
competition with capitalism; 

b. Questions concerning the struggle for peace and peace- 
ful coexistence. The need to pool the efforts of all peace- 
loving forces for the struggle to prevent a world thermo- 
nuclear war. The creation and the strengthening of the 
broadest united front of peace supporters. The exposure of 
the reactionary essence of imperialism, the heightening of 
vigilance and the mobilization of the broad masses to fight 
against the preparations being made by the imperialists for a 
new world war, frustrate their aggressive schemes and isolate 
the forces of reaction and war. Assertion in international 
relations of the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence be- 
tween states with different social systems. The struggle for 
general and complete disarmament and for the elimination 
of the traces of the Second World War; 

c. Questions concerning the struggle against imperialism 
headed by the U.S. The use, in the interests of our cause, of 
the weakening positions of capitalism and the growing 

520 



instability of the entire capitalist system of world economy, 
the aggravation of contradictions of capitalism, and above all 
contradictions between labour and capital, and the severe 
crisis in bourgeois ideology and politics. Support of the rev- 
olutionary and class struggle of the working people in cap- 
italist countries against the monopolies, for their social 
liberation, for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, 
for the extension of the democratic rights and freedoms of the 
peoples; 

d. Questions concerning the national-liberation movement. 
The support and utmost development of the national-liberation 
movement of the peoples. The struggle for the complete and 
final ending of colonialism and neo-colonialism in all its forms. 
The rendering of support to peoples fighting against colo- 
nialism, and also to countries which have achieved their 
national liberation. The development of economic and cul- 
tural co-operation with these countries; 

e. Questions concerning the consolidation of the unity and 
cohesion of the socialist community and of the ranks of the 
communist movement. The need for consolidating in every 
way the international communist movement, the most influen- 
tial political force of our times, particularly in conditions 
where the imperialist reactionaries have joined forces in the 
fight against communism. The prevention of any actions 
which could undermine this unity, the firm adherence by each 
fraternal Party to the assessments and conclusions worked out 
jointly. The continuation of the struggle against revisionism 
and dogmatism, as an indispensable condition for the defense 
of Marxism-Leninism in its pure form, and of its creative 
development, and for the further successes of the communist 
movement. The development of relations among the fraternal 
Parties on the basis of the principles of proletarian interna- 
tionalism and mutual aid and support. The working out of 
joint measures to intensify the ideological and political strug- 
gle against imperialism and reaction. 

521 



During the talks it will be possible to discuss all the ques- 
tions mentioned in your letter, questions of common interest 
stemming from the tasks in the struggle to implement the 
decisions of the Moscow Meetings. An important role could 
be played by the discussion of the questions connected with 
the consolidation of unity between the USSR and the Peo- 
ple's Republic of China. 

In your letter you raise the Albanian and Yugoslav ques- 
tions. We have already written to you that these questions, 
though of a basic nature, cannot and should not eclipse the 
main problems of our times which call for discussion at our 
meeting. 

Our Party, having condemned the splitting activities of the 
Albanian leaders, has at the same time taken a number of steps 
towards normalizing the relations between the Albanian Party 
of Labour and the CPSU and other fraternal Parties. In 
spite of the fact that the leaders of the Albanian Party of 
Labour have recently been coming out with slanderous attacks 
on our Party and the Soviet people, we, being guided by 
supreme interests, do not relinquish the hope that the rela- 
tions between the CPSU and the Albanian Party of Labour 
may be improved. At the end of February this year the CPSU 
Central Committee once again took the initiative and suggested 
to the Central Committee of the Albanian Party of Labour 
that a bilateral meeting be held between representatives of 
our two Parties. However, this comradely step on our part 
did not meet with due response on the part of the Albanian 
leadership. The leaders of the Albanian Party of Labour did 
not even deem it necessary to acknowledge our letter con- 
taining the CPSU Central Committee's proposal about the 
bilateral meetings. Having obviously later come to their 
senses, the Albanian leaders sent us a letter in which, after 
some reservations and stipulations, they speak of such a meet- 
ing. If real desire is in fact shown, we are ready to have a 
meeting. 

522 



As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, we maintain, proceeding 
from an analysis and assessment of the objective economic 
and political conditions in that country, that it is a socialist 
country, and in our relations with it we strive to establish 
closer relations between the Federative People's Republic of 
Yugoslavia and the socialist commonwealth, in accordance with 
the policy pursued by the fraternal Parties for the cementing 
together of all the anti-imperialist forces of the world. We 
also take into consideration the definite positive tendencies 
shown of late in Yugoslavia's economic and socio-political 
life. Meanwhile the CPSU is aware of the serious differences 
that exist with the League of Communists of Yugoslavia on 
several ideological questions and considers it necessary to tell 
the Yugoslav comrades so frankly, criticizing those views of 
theirs which it finds wrong. 

In its letter of March 9, 1963, the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of China agrees with us in saying that today 
the world communist movement faces a crucial time. It 
depends on us, on our Parties, on the correctness of our policy, 
whether we continue to advance together in one rank or allow 
ourselves to be involved in a struggle harmful to the working 
class, to our peoples and to all working people, a struggle that 
can only result in mutual estrangement, weaken the forces 
of socialism, and undermine the unity of the world communist 
movement. 

Naturally, being large, strong Parties, the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China would 
emerge from this situation with smaller losses; but as far as 
the other fraternal Parties, especially those working in com- 
plex conditions, are concerned, they would be faced with great 
and moreover unnecessary complications, which, of course, is 
not our aim. 

Everything depends on how we act in this serious and com- 
plex situation. Are we to continue engaging in polemics, 
to fall prey to our passions, and to turn arguments into 
recriminations and unproved accusations and sallies against 

523 



the fraternal Parties? Or are we, aware of the great respon- 
sibility that we bear for the destinies of our great cause, to 
direct developments along a different channel, and show 
enough courage to rise above all that divides us today, cease 
uncomradely polemics, and concentrate on a search for ways 
of consolidating militant Soviet-Chinese co-operation, of con- 
solidating the friendship of all the fraternal Parties? 

We realize that any movement, including the communist 
movement, is unthinkable without controversy. However, no 
differences, no displeasure at the behaviour of a particular 
Party, can justify methods of struggle detrimental to the in- 
terests of the international communist movement. The deeper 
and broader our understanding of the aims and tasks of the 
international working class, the greater the vigour with which 
we should strive to analyse our differences, however serious 
they may seem today, quietly and relevantly, and prevent 
them from interfering with our positive work, from disorganiz- 
ing the revolutionary activities of the international working 
class. 

Let us struggle together for consistent adherence to the 
Marxist-Leninist course in the international communist move- 
ment, against revisionism and dogmatism, for closer unity in 
the ranks of the international communist movement, for respect 
for collectively worked out policies, and against any violations 
or arbitrary interpretations of these. 

Our Party does not succumb to the heat of the polemic 
struggle but, aware of our common responsibility to the world 
communist movement, wishes to stop the dangerous process 
of sliding into a new series of discussions. It is obvious to 
everyone that we could have found much to say in defence 
of the Leninist policy of the CPSU, in defence of the com- 
mon line of the international communist movement, in reply 
to groundless attacks made in articles recently carried by the 
Chinese press. And if we are not doing it now it is only 
because we do not want to gladden the foes of the communist 
movement. We hope that the harm caused by the sharpen- 

524 



ing polemics will be realized, and the interests of the unity 
of the socialist system and the international communist move- 
ment will be placed above all else. Therefore we suggest a 
meeting to you, not in order to aggravate the dispute but in 
order to reach a mutual understanding on major problems that 
have arisen in the international communist movement. 

We know that such meeting is being looked forward to by 
our friends in all the countries of the world, and that they 
pin great hopes on it. It depends on us, on our will and 
reason, whether results gladdening to our friends and upsetting 
to the enemies of communism will be achieved at the meeting. 
This will be our common contribution to the cause of the 
struggle for the liberation of all oppressed people, for the 
victory of peace and socialism on earth, for the triumph of 
the great revolutionary doctrine of Marxism-Leninism. 

With communist greetings, 

The Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union 



OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION 

TO ALL PARTY ORGANIZATIONS, TO ALL COMMUNISTS 

OF THE SOVIET UNION 

(July 14, 1963) 

Dear Comrades, 

The Central Committee of the CPSU deems it necessary to 
address this open letter to you in order to set out its position 
on the fundamental questions of the international communist 
movement in connection with the letter of the Central Com- 
mmittee of the Communist Party of China of June 14, 1963. 

Soviet people are well aware that our party and govern- 
ment, expressing the will of the entire Soviet people, spare 
no efforts to strengthen fraternal friendship with the peoples 
of all the socialist countries, with the Chinese people. We 
are united by common struggle for the victory of communism, 
we share the same aim, the same aspirations and hopes. 

For many years relations between our parties were good. 
But some time ago there came to light serious differences 
between the CPC on the one hand, and the CPSU and the 
other fraternal parties, on the other. At the present time, the 
statements and actions of the leadership of the Communist 
Party of China, which are undermining the cohesion of our 
parties and the friendship of our peoples, are causing increas- 
ing concern to the CPSU Central Committee. 

For its part, the CPSU Central Committee has been doing 
everything possible to overcome the differences that have 



The bold-type emphases in this letter are Renmin Ribao 's — Ed. 

526 



arisen, and in January this year proposed the cessation of 
open polemics in the communist movement, so that the issues 
be discussed calmly and in a businesslike manner, and solved 
on a principled Marxist-Leninist basis. This proposal of the 
CPSU met with the warm support of all the fraternal parties. 
Agreement was subsequently reached on a meeting between 
representatives of the CPSU and the CPC, which is now tak- 
ing place in Moscow. 

The CPSU Central Committee hoped that the Chinese 
comrades would, like ourselves, display good will and would 
facilitate the success of the meeting in the interests of our 
peoples, in the interests of strengthening the unity of the 
communist movement. To our regret, when agreement was 
reached on the Moscow meeting of representatives of the 
CPSU and CPC, when the delegations were appointed and 
the date of the meeting set, the Chinese comrades, instead 
of submitting the divergencies for discussion at this meeting, 
unexpectedly found it possible not only to state the old dif- 
ferences openly, before the entire world, but also to advance 
new charges against the CPSU and other Communist parties. 
This found expression in the publication of the June 14 letter 
of the CPC Central Committee, which gives an arbitrary in- 
terpretation of the Declaration and Statement of the Moscow 
meetings of representatives of the Communist and Workers' 
parties, and distorts the basic principles of these historic doc- 
uments. The CPC Central Committee letter contains ground- 
less, slanderous attacks on our party and on other Communist 
parties, on the decisions of the 20th, 21st, and 22nd Congresses 
of the CPSU and on the CPSU Programme. 

As you know from the statement of the CPSU Central Com- 
mittee published in Pravda on June 19, the Presidium of the 
CPSU Central Committee, having studied the June 14 letter 
of the CPC Central Committee, arrived at the conclusion that 
its publication in the Soviet press at that time would have 
been inadvisable. Publication of the letter would, naturally, 
have required a public reply on our part; this would have 

527 



further aggravated the controversy and inflamed passions, 
and would have thereby worsened relations between our 
parties. Publication of the letter of the CPC Central Com- 
mittee would have been the more untimely since a meeting 
was to be held between representatives of the CPSU and CPC 
with the purpose, in our opinion, of contributing, through 
comradely examination of existing differences, to better 
mutual understanding between our two parties on the vital 
questions of present-day world development, and of creating 
a favourable atmosphere for the preparation and holding of 
a meeting of representatives of all Communist and Workers' 
parties. 

At the same time, the Presidium of the CPSU Central Com- 
mittee considered it necessary to acquaint the members of 
the CPSU Central Committee and all the participants in its 
Plenary Meeting with the letter of the CPC Central Com- 
mittee, and inform them of the substance of the differences 
between the CPC leadership and the CPSU and the other 
Marxist-Leninist parties. 

In its unanimously adopted decision the Central Committee 
Plenum fully endorsed the political activity of the CPSU 
Central Committee Presidium and of First Secretary of 
the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Council of 
Ministers of the U.S.S.R. N. S. Khrushchov aimed at further 
uniting the forces of the world communist movement, and all 
the steps taken by the CPSU Central Committee Presidium in 
its relations with the Central Committee of the Communist 
Party of China. 

The CPSU Central Committee Plenum instructed the Pre- 
sidium of the Central Committee unswervingly to follow the 
line of the 20th, 21st and 22nd Congresses of our party at the 
meeting with representatives of the CPC, a line approved at 
the meetings of representatives of the Communist parties and 
embodied in the Declaration and Statement, a line that has 
been fully confirmed by life, by the course of international 
developments. The Central Committee Plenum emphatically 

528 



rejected as groundless and slanderous the attacks of the 
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on our 
party and other Communist parties, on the decisions of the 
20th, 21st and 22nd Congresses, on the Programme of the 
CPSU. Expressing the will of the entire party, it declared its 
readiness and determination consistently to pursue a course 
to unite our fraternal parties and overcome existing differ- 
ences. The Plenum declared that our party would continue its 
efforts to strengthen unity on the basis of the principles of 
Marxism-Leninism and socialist internationalism, fraternal 
friendship between the CPSU and the CPC in the interests of 
the struggle for our common cause. 

Unfortunately, recent events have shown that the Chinese 
comrades interpret our restraint in their own way. They 
depict our sincere striving to avoid a sharpening of the con- 
troversy in the communist movement as little short of an in- 
tention to hide the views of the Chinese leaders from the 
Soviet Communists and people. Mistaking our restraint for 
weakness, the Chinese comrades, contrary to the standards 
of friendly relations between fraternal socialist countries, 
began, with increasing importunity and persistence, unlaw- 
fully to circulate in Moscow and other Soviet cities the June 
14 letter of the CPC Central Committee, of which a large 
number of copies were printed in Russian. Not content with 
this, the Chinese comrades began sedulously to popularize and 
spread throughout the world this letter and other documents 
directed against our party, not scrupling to use imperialist 
publishing houses and agencies for their distribution. 

The position has been aggravated by the fact that when 
the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Foreign Affairs drew the attention 
of the Chinese Ambassador in the Soviet Union to the imper- 
missibility of such actions, which constitute a gross violation 
of our country's sovereignty, the Chinese representatives, far 
from stopping them, declared in a demonstrative way that 
they regarded it as their right to continue to circulate the 
letter in the U.S.S.R. 

529 



On July 7, when the Moscow meeting had already begun, 
a mass rally was held in Peking at which the Chinese expelled 
from the Soviet Union for the unlawful distribution of 
materials containing attacks on our party and the Soviet 
government were hailed as heroes by Chinese officials. 
Seeking to instigate among the fraternal Chinese people senti- 
ments and feelings unfriendly to the U.S.S.R., the Chinese 
officials tried, at this rally, to prove their right to violate the 
sovereignty of our state and the standards of international 
relations. On July 10, the CPC Central Committee issued 
another statement, in which it justifies these actions and, 
in effect, tries to arrogate to itself the right to interfere in 
the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, which the Soviet 
government, naturally, will never allow. Such actions can 
only aggravate relations and can do nothing but harm. 

In its leading article on July 13, the Peking People's Daily 
again attacked our party and gave a distorted interpretation 
of the fact that the Soviet press did not publish the June 14 
letter of the CPC Central Committee. 

The frankly unfriendly actions of the CPC leaders, their 
persistent striving to aggravate the controversy in the interna- 
tional communist movement, the deliberate distortion of our 
party's position, the misinterpretation of our motives in 
temporarily refraining from publishing the letter, impel us to 
publish the letter of the CPC Central Committee of June 14, 
1963, and to give our appraisal of it. 

Everyone who reads the letter of the CPC Central Com- 
mittee will see behind the fine phrases about unity and 
cohesion unfriendly, slanderous attacks on our party and the 
Soviet Union, a striving to play down the historic significance 
of our people's struggle for the victory of communism in the 
U.S.S.R., for the triumph of peace and socialism throughout 
the world. The document contains every manner of charge, 
direct and veiled, against the CPSU and the Soviet Union. 
Its authors permit themselves fabrications, unseemly and 
insulting to Communists, about "betrayal of the interests of 

530 



the international proletariat and all the peoples of the world," 
"departure from Marxism-Leninism and proletarian interna- 
tionalism," hint at "cowardice in face of the imperialists," 
"a step back in the course of historic development," and even 
at "organizational and moral disarming of the proletariat and 
all the working people" tantamount to "contributing to the 
restoration of capitalism" in our country. How can they say 
these things about the party of the great Lenin, about the 
motherland of socialism, about the people who were the first 
in the world to accomplish a socialist revolution, upheld its 
great gains in fierce battles against international imperialism 
and domestic counter-revolution, are displaying miracles of 
heroism and dedication in the effort to build communism, are 
faithfully fulfilling their internationalist duty to the working 
people of the world. 



For nearly half a century the Soviet Union, under the 
leadership of the Communist Party, has been fighting for the 
triumph of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, for the freedom 
and happiness of the working people throughout the world. 
From the very first days of the Soviet state, when the great 
Lenin stood at its helm, and right up to the present day, our 
people have rendered and are rendering tremendous and 
disinterested assistance to all the peoples fighting for libera- 
tion from the yoke of imperialism and colonialism, for the 
building of a new life. 

World history furnishes no example of a country rendering 
aid to other countries on such a scale in the development of 
their economy, science and technology. 

The working people of China and the Chinese Communists 
felt in full measure the fraternal solidarity of the Soviet peo- 
ple, of our party, both in the period of their revolutionary 
struggle for the liberation of their country and in the years 

531 



of socialist construction. Immediately after the formation 
of the People's Republic of China, the Soviet government 
signed with the government of People's China a Treaty of 
Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, which is a power- 
ful weapon against imperialist encroachments, a factor for 
consolidating peace in the Far East and the whole world. 

The Soviet people generously shared with their Chinese 
brothers their experience in socialist construction, accumulated 
over many years, their achievements in the fields of science 
and technology. Our country has rendered and is rendering 
substantial aid to the economic development of People's 
China. With the active assistance of the Soviet Union, Peo- 
ple's China built 198 factories, factory departments and other 
industrial units equipped with up-to-date machinery. With 
the assistance of our country, China started such new in- 
dustries as automobiles, tractors, aircraft and others. The 
Soviet Union handed over to the P.R.C. more than 21,000 
sets of scientific and technical documentation, including more 
than 1,400 major projects. We have invariably helped China 
strengthen her defence capacity and create a modern defence 
industry. Thousands of Chinese specialists and workers have 
been trained in Soviet higher schools and in our industries. 
Now, too, the Soviet Union continues its technical assistance 
to the People's Republic of China in the construction of 88 
industrial enterprises and projects. We mention all this not 
by way of boasting, but only because of late the CPC leaders 
have sought to belittle the significance of Soviet aid; nor do 
we forget that the Soviet Union, in its turn, received needed 
goods from the P.R.C. 

It is not so long ago that the Chinese leaders spoke justly 
and eloquently about the friendship of the peoples of China 
and the Soviet Union, about the unity of the CPSU and the 
CPC, giving a high appraisal of Soviet aid and urging the 
people to learn from the experience of the Soviet Union. 

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said in 1957: "In their struggle 
for national liberation, the Chinese people had the fraternal 

532 



sympathy and support of the Soviet people. After the victory 
of the Chinese revolution the Soviet Union has likewise been 
rendering all-round and immense assistance in the construc- 
tion of socialism in China. The Chinese people will never 
forget all this." 

One can only regret that the Chinese leaders have begun 
to forget this. 

Our party, all Soviet people, rejoiced at, and took pride in, 
the successes of the great Chinese people in building the new 
life. Speaking at a reception in Peking on the tenth an- 
niversary of the People's Republic of China, Comrade N. S. 
Khrushchov said: "The heroic and industrious people of China 
demonstrated, under the leadership of their glorious Com- 
munist Party, what a people is capable of when it takes power 
into its own hands. . . . Now everybody admits the successes 
of the Chinese people and the Communist Party of China. 
The peoples of Asia and Africa see along which path, under 
which system, the talents, the creative forces of the people 
can be fully developed, so that a nation can demonstrate the 
breadth and depth of its mighty creative strength." 

That is how things stood until the Chinese leaders began 
to deflect from the general course of the world communist 
movement. 

In April 1960 the Chinese comrades openly revealed their 
disagreements with the world communist movement by pub- 
lishing the collection of articles "Long Live Leninism!" This 
collection, made up, in the main, of distorted, truncated and 
incorrectly interpreted passages from well-known works of 
Lenin, contained propositions directed, in substance, against 
the fundamentals of the Declaration of the Moscow Meeting 
of 1957, which was signed on behalf of the CPC by Comrade 
Mao Tse-tung, against the Leninist policy of peaceful co- 
existence of states with different social systems, against the 
possibility of preventing world war in the present era, against 
recognition of the peaceful as well as non-peaceful road of 
development of socialist revolution. The CPC leaders tried 

533 



to impose their views on all the fraternal parties. In June 
1960, during the Peking session of the General Council of the 
World Federation of Trade Unions, the Chinese leaders, with- 
out the knowledge of the leadership of fraternal parties, 
arranged a meeting of representatives of several parties then 
in Peking and launched open criticism of the position of the 
CPSU and the other Marxist-Leninist parties and the Declara- 
tion adopted by the Moscow Meeting in 1957. Furthermore, 
the Chinese comrades aired their differences with the CPSU 
and the other fraternal parties from the open tribune of a 
non-party organization. 

Such steps by the CPC leadership aroused anxiety in the 
fraternal parties. In view of this, an attempt was made at 
the Bucharest Meeting of Communist Parties in 1960 to 
discuss the differences that had arisen with the leaders of 
the CPC. Representatives of 50 Communist and Workers' 
parties subjected the views and actions of the Chinese leaders 
to comradely criticism and urged them to return to the path 
of unity and co-operation with the international communist 
movement, in conformity with the principles of the Moscow 
Declaration. Unfortunately, the CPC leadership disregarded 
this comradely assistance and continued to pursue its erro- 
neous course and deepen its differences with the fraternal 
parties. 

Anxious to prevent such a development of events, the CPSU 
Central Committee suggested talks with the Central Com- 
mittee of the Communist Party of China. These took place 
in Moscow in September 1960. But then, too, it was impos- 
sible to resolve the differences due to the stubborn unwill- 
ingness of the CPC delegation to heed the opinion of a 
fraternal party. At the Meeting of Representatives of 81 
Communist and Workers' Parties in November 1960, the 
absolute majority of the fraternal parties rejected the incorrect 
views and concepts of the CPC leadership. The Chinese delega- 
tion at this meeting stubbornly upheld its own particular 

534 



views and signed the Statement only when the danger of its 
complete isolation became clear. 

It is now perfectly clear that in appending their signatures 
to the 1960 Statement, the CPC leaders were only manoeuvr- 
ing. Shortly after the meeting they resumed the propaganda 
of their policy, using as their mouthpiece the leadership of 
the Albanian Party of Labour. Behind the back of our party 
they launched a campaign against the CPSU Central Com- 
mittee and the Soviet government. 

In October 1961 the CPSU Central Committee made fresh 
efforts to normalize relations with the CPC. Comrades N. S. 
Khrushchov, F. R. Kozlov and A. I. Mikoyan had talks with 
Comrades Chou En-lai, Peng Chen and other leading CPC 
officials attending the 22nd CPSU Congress. Comrade N. S. 
Khrushchov explained in detail to the Chinese delegation the 
position of the CPSU Central Committee on the questions of 
principle discussed at the 22nd Congress and stressed our 
invariable desire to strengthen friendship and co-operation 
with the Communist Party of China. 

In its letters of February 22 and May 31, 1962, the CPSU 
Central Committee drew the attention of the CPC Central 
Committee to the dangerous consequences for our common 
cause that might follow from the weakening of the unity of 
the communist movement. We then suggested to the Chinese 
comrades that steps be taken to deprive the imperialists of the 
opportunity to use in their interests the difficulties which had 
arisen in Soviet-Chinese relations. The CPSU Central Com- 
mittee also suggested more effective measures on such ques- 
tions as exchange of internal political information, co-ordina- 
tion of the positions of our fraternal parties in international 
democratic organizations and in other matters. 

However, these letters and the other practical steps aimed 
at improving relations with the CPC and the P.R.C. in all 
fields, did not meet with a response in Peking. 

In the autumn of last year, the Presidium of the CPSU 
Central Committee had a long talk with Comrade Liu Hsiao, 

535 



the then P.R.C. Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., before his depar- 
ture from Moscow. In the course of this conversation, the 
members of the Central Committee Presidium again took the 
initiative in strengthening Chinese-Soviet friendship. Comrade 
N. S. Khrushchov asked Comrade Liu Hsiao to convey to 
Comrade Mao Tse-tung our proposal: "To set aside all disputes 
and differences, not to try to establish who is right and who 
is wrong, not to stir up the past, but to start our relations 
from a clean slate." But we did not even receive an answer 
to this sincere appeal. 

Deepening their ideological differences with the fraternal 
parties, the leaders of the CPC began to carry them over to 
governmental relations. Chinese government agencies began 
curtailing economic and trade relations with the Soviet Union 
and other socialist countries. On the initiative of the P.R.C. 
government, the volume of China's trade with the Soviet 
Union was cut to nearly one-third in the past three years; 
delivery of complete sets of industrial plant dropped to one- 
fortieth of the former volume. This was done on the initiative 
of the Chinese leaders. We regret that the P.R.C. leadership 
has embarked on such a policy. Now as always, we believe 
it is necessary to go on developing Soviet-Chinese relations 
and extend co-operation. This would be mutually beneficial, 
above all to People's China, which has received great assistance 
from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. In the 
past, the Soviet Union developed extensive relations with 
China, and today, too, it wants their expansion, not curtail- 
ment. One would expect the CPC leadership to be the first 
to display concern for the development of economic relations 
with the socialist countries. However, it has been acting in 
the opposite direction, disregarding the damage such actions 
cause the P.R.C. economy. 

The Chinese leaders did not tell their people the truth 
about who is responsible for curtailing these relations. Ex- 
tensive propaganda aimed at discrediting the foreign and 
domestic Policy of the CPSU, at stirring up anti-Soviet senti- 

536 



ment, was started among the Chinese Communists and even 
among the population. 

The CPSU Central Committee drew the Chinese comrades' 
attention to these incorrect actions. We told the Chinese 
comrades that the people should not be prompted to praise 
or anathematize this or that party depending on the emergence 
of disputes and differences. It is clear to every Communist 
that disagreements among fraternal parties are but temporary 
episodes, whereas relations between the peoples of the 
socialist countries are now being shaped for all time. 

Every time, however, the Chinese leaders ignored the com- 
radely warnings of the CPSU and further strained Chinese- 
Soviet relations. 

Beginning with the close of 1961, Chinese representatives 
in international democratic organizations have been openly 
imposing their erroneous views. In December 1961, at the 
Stockholm session of the World Peace Council, the Chinese 
delegation opposed the convocation of the World Congress for 
Peace and Disarmament. In the course of 1962 the work of 
the World Federation of Trade Unions, the World Peace Move- 
ment, the Afro-Asian Solidarity Movement, the World Federa- 
tion of Democratic Youth, the Women's International Dem- 
ocratic Federation, and many other organizations, was placed 
in jeopardy by the divisive activities of the Chinese repre- 
sentatives. They opposed participation of represe